evidence of efficiencyone as holder of the efficiency nova ... · 20 ensc ceased to exist as nova...

EfficiencyOne

IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act

- and -

IN THE MATTER OF An application by EfficiencyOne for Approval of

a Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Activities

between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Inc., the establishment of

a final agreement between the parties, and approval of a 2019 Demand

Side Management (“DSM”) Resource Plan

Evidence of EfficiencyOne

as Holder of the

Efficiency Nova Scotia Franchise

M08604

FILED

April 6, 2018

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING EVIDENCE

i

DATE FILED: April 6, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.1.1 2013-2015 DSM Plan ................................................................................................. 2

1.1.2 Public Utilities Act Revisions .................................................................................... 2

1.1.3 ENS Franchise ............................................................................................................ 3

1.1.4 2015 DSM Resource Plan .......................................................................................... 3

1.1.5 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan ................................................................................. 4

1.1.6 Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act ............................................................... 5

2. TRANSITION YEAR PLANNING ......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Development of 2019 DSM Program Targets and Investment ......................................... 8

2.2 Treatment of Rate and Bill Impact Analysis ..................................................................... 9

2.3 2019 Evaluation Activities ................................................................................................ 9

2.4 2019 Planned Investment by Rate Class / 2019 Cost Allocation Approach ................... 10

2.5 Reporting and Mid-Course Adjustments ......................................................................... 10

2.5.1 Quarterly Reporting .................................................................................................. 10

2.5.2 Annual Reporting ..................................................................................................... 11

2.5.3 Mid-Course Adjustments and Flexibility ................................................................. 13

2.6 Performance Targets, Indicators and Thresholds ............................................................ 13

3. 2019 DSM RESOURCE PLAN .............................................................................................. 16

3.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 16

3.2 2019 Energy Savings and Investment ............................................................................. 18

4. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ........................................................................................................... 20

4.1 EfficiencyOne Financial Reporting and Internal Controls .............................................. 20

4.1.1 Internal Audit Services ............................................................................................. 20

4.1.2 Risk Management Policy ......................................................................................... 21

4.1.3 Internal Management Reports .................................................................................. 21

4.1.4 Control Based External Audit Approach ................................................................. 21

4.2 Electronic Technical Reference Manual .......................................................................... 22

5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 23


ii


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Proposed Inclusions for the 2019 Annual Progress Report ............................................ 12

Table 2 - Proposed Performance Indicators and Targets ............................................................... 15

Table 3 - 2019 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment ........................................................ 18

APPENDICES

Appendix A - 2019 DSM Resource Plan

Appendix B - 2019 DSM Resource Plan Development Approach and Details

Appendix C - Forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis

Appendix D - 2019 Planned Expenditures by Rate Class


Page 1 of 23


1. INTRODUCTION 1

2

This Evidence is in support of an electricity Demand Side Management (DSM) Resource 3

Plan (2019 DSM Resource Plan) to supply Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power) with 4

electricity efficiency and conservation activities in 2019. It is being filed with the Nova 5

Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) by EfficiencyOne as holder of the Efficiency 6

Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise, in accordance with the Public Utilities Act.1 7

8

The 2019 DSM Resource Plan Application consists of: 9

• A Notice of Application 10

• This Evidence 11

- the 2019 DSM Resource Plan (Appendix A) 12

- the 2019 DSM Resource Plan Development Approach and Details 13

(Appendix B) 14

- a forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Report (Appendix C; 15

Excel model filed electronically) 16

- 2019 Planned Expenditures by Rate Class (Appendix D) 17

• An executed Supply Agreement for Electricity Efficiency and Conservation 18

Activities (“Supply Agreement”), between NS Power and EfficiencyOne 19

20

In accordance with the Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, which was drafted to 21

support NS Power’s Rate Stability Period of 2017-2019, the 2019 DSM Resource Plan is 22

based on a continuation approach. As such, this Application is an exception from the typical 23

three-year DSM Plan required under the Public Utilities Act. The Electricity Plan 24

Implementation (2015) Act and resulting continuation approach are discussed in section 25

1.1.6 of this Evidence. 26

1 Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c 380, s. 79.


Page 2 of 23


1.1 Background 1

2

The responsibility and accountability for DSM administration transferred from NS Power 3

to Efficiency Nova Scotia Corporation (ENSC) effective October 1, 2010. ENSC submitted 4

its first DSM Plan filing, the 2012 DSM Plan, on February 28, 2011, which was approved 5

by the UARB on June 30, 2011. 6

7

1.1.1 2013-2015 DSM Plan 8

9

ENSC submitted its 2013-2015 DSM Plan on February 27, 2012, along with subsequent 10

revisions filed on March 30, 2012 and April 18, 2012. A DSM Settlement Agreement with 11

respect to the first two years (2013 and 2014) of the 2013-2015 DSM Plan was approved 12

by the UARB on June 4, 2012. 13

14

1.1.2 Public Utilities Act Revisions 15

16

Revisions to the Public Utilities Act, introduced through the Electricity Efficiency and 17

Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act,2 pronounced a structural change for energy 18

efficiency and conservation activities in Nova Scotia in 2015. As a result of this legislation, 19

ENSC ceased to exist as Nova Scotia’s DSM provider on January 1, 2015. In its place, an 20

ENS franchise was created and awarded to EfficiencyOne by the Minister of Energy. 21

Highlights include: 22

• As of January 1, 2015, NS Power is required to undertake cost-effective 23

electricity efficiency and conservation activities that are reasonably available in 24

an effort to reduce costs for its customers (s. 79I(1)); 25

• The franchise “gives the franchise holder the exclusive right to supply Nova 26

Scotia Power Incorporated with reasonably available, cost-effective electricity 27

efficiency and conservation activities” (s. 79C(2)(a)); 28

2 Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act, SNS 2014, c 5.


Page 3 of 23


• The “franchise holder is deemed to be a public utility in relation to its franchise 1

activities” (s. 79G(2)); 2

• The supply of electricity efficiency and conservation activities is administered 3

by the holder of the ENS franchise on a contractual basis with NS Power, with 4

the Supply Agreement being approved by the UARB; and 5

• As outlined in legislation, the UARB may “determine the manner in which any 6

costs recoverable by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated from its customers must 7

be allocated amongst Nova Scotia Power Incorporated’s customers, and in doing 8

so may, in addition to any other factors considered appropriate by the Board, 9

take into account the Rate Smoothing Adjustment” (section 79S). 10

11

1.1.3 ENS Franchise 12

13

On November 28, 2014, the Minister of Energy granted the ENS franchise to 14

EfficiencyOne, making it a public utility in relation to these regulated activities. The 15

franchise was awarded to EfficiencyOne for a nine-year term, from January 1, 2016 to 16

December 31, 2024,3 with a one-year transition period for 2015.4 This term was 17

subsequently extended by one year to 2025, in accordance with the Electricity Plan 18

Implementation (2015) Act (see below).5 19

20

1.1.4 2015 DSM Resource Plan 21

22

For the 2015 transition year, NS Power and EfficiencyOne were deemed to have entered 23

into an initial agreement.6 In 2015 only, the legislation limited the dollar amount to be spent 24

on electricity efficiency and conservation activities to not more than $35 million, plus any 25

3 Public Utilities Act, supra note 1 at s 79Q(1). 4 Ibid at s 79Q(2). 5 Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, SNS 2015, c 30, s 33. 6 Public Utilities Act, supra note 1 at s 79Q(2).


Page 4 of 23


over-recovery of funds by ENSC from 2013.7 1

2

EfficiencyOne filed its 2015 DSM Resource Plan with the UARB on May 14, 2014 and the 3

UARB approved a Settlement Agreement on September 8, 2014. The one-year Plan was 4

designed as a continuation plan, based on historical experience, market research and 5

evaluated savings results rather than the modelling approach used in past DSM Plans. 6

7

1.1.5 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan 8

9

EfficiencyOne filed its 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan with the UARB on February 27, 10

2015. This DSM Resource Plan was based on the full resource modelling approach. 11

Following a public hearing, EfficiencyOne filed a Compliance Filing with the UARB on 12

September 15, 2015. The UARB approved a Consensus Agreement and the Compliance 13

Filing on October 7, 2015.8 14

15

In accordance with the UARB-approved Consensus Agreement and a separate Settlement 16

Agreement (termed the ‘Quantum Agreement’),9 certain issues from the 2016-2018 DSM 17

Resource Plan proceedings were deferred for resolution outside the regulatory hearing 18

process. In addition, the Consensus Agreement specified a collaborative approach to 19

determining cost allocation and recovery. 20

7 Ibid at s. 79R(1). 8 The Consensus Agreement was signed by EfficiencyOne, NS Power, the Consumer Advocate, the Small Business

Advocate, the Industrial Group, the Affordable Energy Coalition, and the Ecology Action Centre. M06733, NSUARB

Decision, The Public Utilities Act and An Application for Approval of a Supply Agreement for electricity efficiency

and conservation activities between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated, the establishment of a final

agreement between the parties, and approval of a 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (12 Aug

2015), 2015 NSUARB 204 at para 24 and Appendix D (available on CanLII). 9 The Quantum Agreement was signed by EfficiencyOne, the Consumer Advocate, the Small Business Advocate, the

Affordable Energy Coalition, and the Ecology Action Centre. Although the Quantum Agreement was not approved by

the UARB, the UARB Decision indicated its understanding that “the non-financial provisions of the Quantum

Agreement will be pursued by E1, NS Power and other stakeholders through the DSM Advisory Group.” M06733,

NSUARB Decision, The Public Utilities Act and An Application for Approval of a Supply Agreement for electricity

efficiency and conservation activities between EfficiencyOne and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated, the establishment

of a final agreement between the parties, and approval of a 2016-2018 Demand Side Management Resource Plan (12

Aug 2015), 2015 NSUARB 204 at para 27 and Appendix C (available on CanLII).


Page 5 of 23


Following the UARB’s approval of this Consensus Agreement, NS Power initiated a 1

regulatory process (M07151) to determine the appropriate cost allocation and recovery 2

mechanisms for the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. Changes to the Public Utilities Act, as 3

a result of the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act, had 4

removed the ability for NS Power to collect the Demand Side Management Cost Recovery 5

Rider, and made ENS a fuel-supplier to NS Power. As such, NS Power proposed, and 6

ultimately received approval for the treatment of the allocation and recovery of the 2016-7

2018 DSM investment. 8

9

1.1.6 Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act 10

11

The Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act was drafted to support rate stability for NS 12

Power’s Rate Stability Period of 2017-2019 by, inter alia, requiring NS Power to develop 13

a Fuel Stability Plan and providing predictability for the 2019 DSM investment. The 14

legislation achieved this predictability for the 2019 DSM investment by introducing a 15

continuation approach, which essentially extended the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, and 16

set a corresponding 2019 DSM investment amount of not greater than $34,050,000.10 This 17

amount is the annual average of the UARB-approved investment for the 2016-2018 DSM 18

Resource Plan. The Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act also extended the current 19

ENS Grant of Franchise by one year to December 2025.11 20

21

In accordance with this legislation, the proposed 2019 DSM Resource Plan is a one-year 22

continuation plan, similar in concept to the approved DSM Plan for the 2015 transition year. 23

This is an exception to the typical three-year plan required under the Public Utilities Act. 24

To align with the continuation year approach, this DSM Resource Plan was not developed 25

10 The legislation states: “(1) Notwithstanding clause 79I(2)(a) of the Public Utilities Act, for the calendar year 2019,

Nova Scotia Power shall enter into an agreement with the electricity efficiency and conservation franchise holder for

the provision of electricity efficiency and conservation activities in an amount not greater than $34,050,000. (2)

Sections 79J, 79L and 79M of the Public Utilities Act apply mutatis mutandis to the agreement referred to in subsection

(1).” Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, supra note 5 at s 20. 11 Ibid at s 33.


Page 6 of 23


based on the Standardized Filing Framework.12 1

2

The franchise extension to 2025 means the subsequent two DSM Resource Plans will be 3

three-year agreements, in compliance with the Public Utilities Act. EfficiencyOne will 4

utilize the Standardized Filing Framework for these agreements. 5

12 In accordance with the Consensus Agreement to the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, Parties agreed to establish a

Standardized Filing Framework for future applications to approve a DSM Supply Agreement. The Standardized Filing

Framework was filed with the UARB as part of the executed June 30, 2016 Settlement Agreement. See The Order of

the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board in Matter M06733 Directing the Parties to Pursue Resolution of Certain

Matters set out in Settlement Agreements Therein Within the DSM Advisory Group [Settlement Agreement], [2016].


Page 7 of 23


2. TRANSITION YEAR PLANNING 1

2

EfficiencyOne had originally planned to file an Application in 2018 seeking approval for a 3

three-year 2019-2021 DSM Resource Plan, in accordance with section 79J(2)(a) of the 4

Public Utilities Act. However, in compliance with the recent requirements introduced 5

through the Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, EfficiencyOne has developed a 6

one-year 2019 DSM Resource Plan based on a continuation of the 2016-2018 DSM 7

Resource Plan. 8

9

The following considerations influenced EfficiencyOne’s approach in developing its 2019 10

DSM Resource Plan: 11

• To align DSM planning with NS Power’s Rate Stability Period, the Electricity 12

Plan Implementation (2015) Act set the requirement that, “for the calendar year 13

2019, Nova Scotia Power shall enter into an agreement with the electricity 14

efficiency and conservation franchise holder for the provision of electricity 15

efficiency and conservation activities in an amount not greater than 16

$34,050,000”.13 This amount corresponds to the annual average UARB-17

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan investment; and 18

• The most recent Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is from 2014, which was used 19

to inform the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. This means that, in addition to 20

the 2019 DSM Resource Plan being developed as a continuation of the 2016-21

2018 approved DSM Plan and program mix, it is also based on the same 2014 22

IRP considerations. 23

24

EfficiencyOne recognizes that the 2019 DSM Resource Plan must meet the requirements 25

of the new legislation, provide sound and reasonable evidence for regulatory approval, 26

ensure that programs and services are not interrupted, and be put forward without the 27

direction of an updated IRP. This is a similar approach to the one taken in 2015, when 28

13 Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, supra note 5 at s 20(1).


Page 8 of 23


legislative changes also led to the filing of a one-year continuation Plan. 1

2

2.1 Development of 2019 DSM Program Targets and Investment 3

4

In accordance with the considerations identified under section 3 of this Evidence, the 2019 5

DSM Resource Plan was developed as a continuation of the UARB-approved 2016-2018 6

DSM Resource Plan and is informed by, inter alia, the following: 7

• ENS’s experience; 8

• ENS’s planned 2016-2018 suite of programs and services; 9

• Market conditions (e.g. program and measure saturation); 10

• Operational data; and 11

• Program impact and process evaluations, which include: 12

o Evaluated savings results; 13

o Delivery Agent input; and 14

o Participant feedback. 15

16

To develop savings targets for the 2019 Plan, EfficiencyOne assessed actual historical data 17

for 2014-2017 and forecasts for 2018. Historical data includes evaluated program impacts 18

and audited financial results, which were analyzed to set savings targets, define investments 19

and assess cost effectiveness. Please refer to Appendix B for a full overview of the 2019 20

DSM Resource Plan Development Approach and Details. 21


Page 9 of 23


2.2 Treatment of Rate and Bill Impact Analysis 1

2

ENS has conducted a forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis (RBIA) for the 2019 3

DSM Resource Plan as it normally would with a new multi-year Plan filing. The analysis 4

shows that expected rate and bill effects attributable to the proposed 2019 DSM activities 5

are in line with previously approved DSM from 2011-2018. Additionally, the proposed 6

2019 DSM investment is less than the amount of DSM cost recovery present in 2019 rates. 7

While the RBIA shows the total rate effects attributable to DSM, the fact that planned DSM 8

spending is less than DSM collections means that no incremental DSM costs will need to 9

be recovered for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan after the Rate Stabilization Period ends. 10

11

A historical RBIA will also be filed in October 2019, including impacts from all completed 12

(2011-2018) and approved (2019) DSM activities. ENS will continue to work with Synapse 13

and the DSM Advisory Group to improve the rate and bill impact model where possible. 14

ENS will continue to engage the DSM Advisory Group and update the UARB on the 15

evolution of the model. 16

17

2.3 2019 Evaluation Activities 18

19

ENS plans to take a similar approach to evaluation in 2019 as in 2017 and 2018, where 20

evaluation activities are conducted to ensure accurate determination of energy and demand 21

savings, but are condensed where appropriate in recognition of the maturity level some ENS 22

program components have reached. This means that for stable, mature program 23

components, the Evaluator may use the previous year’s unitary savings values, realization 24

rates, and/or installation rates. For newer program components and those with recent 25

changes or more variable savings parameters, the Evaluator will design and conduct a full 26

scope of evaluation activities. In all cases, evaluation activities will be undertaken to ensure 27

the accurate determination of energy and demand savings, maximize the value of the 28

evaluation process, and provide opportunities for continuous improvement. 29


Page 10 of 23


2.4 2019 Planned Investment by Rate Class / 2019 Cost Allocation Approach 1

2

Appendix D provides ENS’s preliminary expected investment by rate class, associated with 3

implementation of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan. This information is presented both at the 4

program and portfolio levels. As with the 2015 and 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plans, NS 5

Power is responsible for the allocation and recovery of the 2019 DSM investment. Tables 6

1 and 2 of Appendix D are intended to provide all the requisite information not already in 7

NS Power’s possession to perform initial cost allocation associated with the 2019 DSM 8

Resource Plan, pending its approval. 9

10

2.5 Reporting and Mid-Course Adjustments 11

12

EfficiencyOne proposes to report on the implementation of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan 13

through quarterly reports and a 2019 Annual Progress Report. The 2019 Annual Progress 14

Report will be filed following the completion of 2019 activities, prior to the end of the first 15

quarter of 2020. ENS also proposes to maintain existing requirements relating to mid-16

course adjustments for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan. 17

18

2.5.1 Quarterly Reporting 19

20

In accordance with the UARB’s Revised Filing Dates letter, issued January 9, 2018, ENS 21

will file its 2019 DSM Quarterly Reports no later than: 22

• Q1 – May 25th 23

• Q2 – August 25th 24

• Q3 – November 25th 25

26

ENS proposes to continue reporting quarterly to the UARB and stakeholders on the same 27

metrics reported on for the 2016-2018 Quarterly Reports, including: 28

• Quarterly and year-to-date (YTD) highlights (comparison of targets, mid-course 29

adjustments, and results by program); 30


Page 11 of 23


• YTD investment by rate class (compared to approved forecast); 1

• Sector highlights (results, participation, and items of interest by program, as well 2

as low-income results); 3

• Other activities (organized by Enabling Strategies categories); and 4

• Advance notice of Significant Changes if relevant.14 5

6

2.5.2 Annual Reporting 7

8

Inclusions in ENS’s 2016-2018 Annual Progress Reports were agreed to within the 2016-9

2018 DSM Resource Plan Consensus Agreement.15 EfficiencyOne proposes a similar list 10

of inclusions for the 2019 Annual Progress Report, with some modifications arising from 11

the nature of a single-year DSM Resource Plan. 12

13

Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed ENS Annual Progress Report 14

inclusions, relative to the original inclusions from the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan 15

Consensus Agreement. 16

14 Substantial or Significant Changes are defined as a variance in energy savings or investment of 25 percent or more

at a program level. 15 M06733, supra, note 8, at Schedule 1, Appendix D.


Page 12 of 23


Table 1 - Proposed Inclusions for the 2019 Annual Progress Report 1

Item Included

(Y/N)

Modified (modified

item or N)

Summary of [previous year’s] context, activities,

and milestones achieved Y N

[Previous year’s] investment by rate class

(compared to approved forecast) Y N

Status of Performance Targets and Indicators Y N

Energy savings and investment for each program

component Y N

Management discussion and analysis of any

major discrepancies relative to the original Plan’s

intent and forecasts

Y N

Summary of investment and savings for each

program or target market area Y N

Update to [current year’s] planned activities

(mid-course adjustments by program plus

updated program descriptions/highlights)

• Corrective Action Plan (if required)

• If mid-course adjustments result in

substantial changes by program,

explanation and justification will be

provided

• Notice of significant changes (if required)

Y

Update to [current

year’s] planned

activities (updated

program

descriptions/highlights)

• Corrective

Action Plan (if

required)

• Notice of

significant

changes (if

required)

Updates on items arising from the 2016-2018

DSM Plan process Y

Updates on items

arising from the 2019

DSM Resource Plan

Process, as applicable

Preliminary cost allocation (if relevant)

Y

Unaudited 2019

expenditures by rate

class

2

ENS will file its 2019 Annual Progress Report by March 31, 2020. 3


Page 13 of 23


2.5.3 Mid-Course Adjustments and Flexibility 1

2

ENS often makes limited adjustments to an approved DSM Resource Plan to reflect 3

changes in market conditions and updated insights from program and organizational 4

evaluations (unknown at the time of DSM Resource Plan development). When setting 2019 5

Mid-Course Adjustments (MCAs), EfficiencyOne will follow the same approach as was 6

taken for the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan MCAs: 7

• EfficiencyOne will provide explanations of substantial changes, defined as variance 8

in energy savings or investment of 25 percent or more at a program level; 9

• EfficiencyOne will undertake reasonable efforts to avoid program changes that will 10

result in substantial changes to any customer rate class on an annual basis; and 11

• EfficiencyOne will provide written advance notice of its intent to implement mid-12

course adjustments by program and their customer rate class impacts. 13

EfficiencyOne is not able to provide advance notice of mid-course adjustments 14

resulting from third-party evaluation reports, as these adjustments are made 15

immediately after receipt of these reports. 16

17

2.6 Performance Targets, Indicators and Thresholds 18

19

As part of the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan development process, ENS engaged Dunsky 20

Energy Consulting to provide guidance on selecting performance targets and indicators, 21

taking into account industry best-practices and Nova Scotia’s specific context. 22

23

For the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, EfficiencyOne will retain the same definitions used in the 24

2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. For clarity, these include: 25

• Performance Metric: A quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status 26

of a specific achievement. 27

• Performance Indicators: A set of particular performance metrics used to indicate or 28

monitor progress toward performance targets. Performance Indicators are 29

management tools that provide information to allow an organization to take action to 30


Page 14 of 23


help it deliver on performance targets. 1

• Performance Target: A performance metric expressed as a specific quantified goal 2

that identifies the desired outcome of an activity at a specific point in time. In this 3

Application, Performance Targets refer to UARB-approved targets. 4

• Performance Threshold: A predefined quantity, percentage, or range, which identifies 5

the allowable deviation from a Performance Target within which the actual outcome 6

is considered to have achieved success. In this Application, Performance Thresholds 7

refer to UARB-approved thresholds. 8

9

In the context of the development of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan as a continuation plan, 10

EfficiencyOne is proposing largely the same performance targets and indicators for the 11

2019 DSM Resource Plan as were present and ultimately approved as part of the 2016-2018 12

DSM Resource Plan. 13

14

The justification provided in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, summarized below, still 15

holds true for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan: 16

• The Total Ratepayer Benefits, Total Spending by ENS and Customer Satisfaction 17

performance indicators use data that is readily available to ENS, and provide 18

valuable context and insight into ENS’s performance; 19

• A Total Spending performance target is not required, as ENS does not have 20

resources to invest more than is approved by the UARB, notwithstanding 21

exceptional circumstances in which an application to the UARB must be made; and 22

• Additional indicators such as Total Resource Benefits and Pipeline of Projects 23

(present in the initial recommendations from Dunsky Energy Consulting) are not 24

included, due to the ongoing discussions relating to customer non-energy benefits 25

and their role in the TRC Test, and the lack of value provided, respectively. 26

27

ENS’s ability to track lifetime energy savings and increased sophistication in doing so has 28

improved over the course of the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. ENS has also begun to 29

report ex-post lifetime energy savings on an annual basis. ENS will keep lifetime energy 30


Page 15 of 23


savings as a performance indicator for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan. 1

2

In the context of a one-year DSM Resource Plan, incremental and cumulative values for 3

energy and peak demand savings are equivalent. As a result, one key change in the proposed 4

performance indicators and targets is the removal of cumulative annual energy savings and 5

cumulative annual peak demand savings performance indicators and targets, and the 6

addition of annual incremental energy savings and annual incremental peak demand savings 7

as performance targets. Table 2 below displays the performance targets and indicators 8

requested for approval. 9

10

Table 2 - Proposed Performance Indicators and Targets 11

Performance Metrics

(Portfolio Level) Units

Annual Reporting

Performance Indicators

Proposed

2019

Performance

Targets

Energy Savings:

- Annual Incremental GWh/Yr ✓ ✓

- Lifetime Savings GWh ✓

Demand Savings:

- Annual Incremental MW ✓ ✓

Other Indicators:

- Total Ratepayer Benefits $M ✓

- Total Spending $M ✓

- Customer Satisfaction % ✓

12

As in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, ENS is proposing a 90 percent Performance 13

Threshold for both Performance Targets. Success is achieved if 90 percent or greater is 14

reached on both Performance Targets specified in Table 2. If less than 90 percent of either 15

Performance Target is achieved, a regulatory process will be triggered. 16


Page 16 of 23


3. 2019 DSM RESOURCE PLAN 1

2

3.1 Summary 3

4

The proposed 2019 DSM budget is based on the average annual budget in the UARB-5

approved 2016-2018 DSM Plan, following the approach established in the Electricity Plan 6

Implementation (2015) Act. Energy and demand savings targets proposed for 2019 are 7

similar to the average annual targets in the UARB-approved 2016-2018 Plan. These targets 8

and budget correspond to a lifetime cost for saved energy of approximately 2.1 cents per 9

kWh.16 10

11

The 2019 DSM Resource Plan also includes increased demand reduction through pilots 12

developed by EfficiencyOne in collaboration with NS Power. The importance of including 13

peak demand reductions as part of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan is due to the continued 14

firm demand growth in Nova Scotia over the past number of years. ENS has included a 15

budget for demand reduction pilots as part of this Application and looks forward to 16

collaborating with NS Power on these initiatives.17 Although these initiatives are not 17

expected to produce evaluated energy or demand savings in 2019, they are foundational 18

to the implementation of future demand reduction activities. For a full discussion of 19

factors affecting proposed 2019 unit costs (cents per kWh of incremental annual net 20

energy savings), please refer to Appendices A and B. 21

22

EfficiencyOne developed the 2019 DSM Resource Plan by analyzing, inter alia: 23

• The historical performance of programs and services; 24

• ENS’s planned 2016-2018 suite of programs and services; 25



16 Based on portfolio Weighted-Average Measure Life of 12.9 years, which has been derived from the 2017 Evaluation

process. 17 The Public Utilities Act (s. 79A(b)(iii)) defines electricity efficiency and conservation activities as including

activities that reduce demand during NS Power’s periods of highest demand.


Page 17 of 23


• Program impact and process evaluations; 1

o Evaluated savings results; 2

o Delivery Agent input; and 3

o Participant feedback. 4

5

EfficiencyOne’s objective in using this approach is to achieve cost-effective and affordable 6

energy and demand savings in a manner that complies with legislative requirements and 7

aligns with ratepayers’ best interests by, inter alia: 8

• Providing a stable level of program activity and funding for the period of NS 9

Power’s Rate Stability Plan; 10

• Achieving cost effective savings by establishing energy and demand targets that 11

correspond with the continuation approach taken in the Electricity Plan 12

Implementation (2015) Act; 13

• Realizing the efficiencies of continuing the 2016-2018 Plan approach, such as 14

enabling programs to continue their momentum, rather than changing course 15

from a successful approach for a one-year term; and 16

• Minimizing costs associated with the 2019 DSM Resource Plan proceeding, 17

recognizing that it is a one-year plan based on a previously approved, rigorously 18

modelled, and successful Plan. In turn, this allows ENS to continue focusing its 19

time, efforts, and expenditures on delivering energy efficiency programs to 20

Nova Scotians. These costs are lowered by: 21

- relying on the 2016-2018 resource modelling process rather than investing 22

to repeat this work when the inputs have not materially changed; 23

- investing a reasonable amount of time to develop the 2019 DSM Resource 24

Plan; and 25

- seeking to avoid a lengthy and expensive regulatory proceeding by 26

continuing an existing and successful UARB-approved DSM Plan for the 27

2019 continuation year. 28


Page 18 of 23


3.2 2019 Energy Savings and Investment 1

2

Table 3 summarizes the savings and investment levels for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, 3

which can be found in Appendix A. Lifetime benefits, TRC test results, and PAC test results 4

are not provided as they were included in the 2016-2018 Plan. 5

6

Table 3 - 2019 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment 7

Currency is expressed in 2019 dollars. 8 Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. 9 a Based on values of program Weighted Average Measure Lives, which have been derived from the 2017 Evaluation process. 10 b Includes participation by low income households. 11

12

With the exception of the 2015 continuation year, EfficiencyOne’s and ENSC’s past DSM 13

Plans have been based on a data-modelled approach that calculated the cost effectiveness 14

of programs using a TRC test. As 2019 is a continuation of the 2016-2018 DSM Resource 15

Plan, which was developed through a data-modelled approach, EfficiencyOne determined 16

to not conduct this modelling for the 2019 DSM Resource Plan as it would significantly 17

increase the costs of developing the Plan, diverting ratepayer funds from energy efficiency 18

programs, without realizing proportional benefits since the inputs have not materially 19

changed. 20

21

The continuation plan concept was, in part, developed to ensure the continuation of cost- 22

effective DSM in Nova Scotia. For example, since the inception of DSM activities in Nova 23

2019Investment

($ million)

Incremental

Annual Net

Energy Savings

at the Generator

(GWh)

Lifetime Net

Energy Savings

at the Generator

(GWh)a

Incremental Annual

Net Demand

Savings at the

Generator

(MW)

First Year

Unit Cost

($/kWh)

Lifetime

Unit Cost

($/kWh)a

Efficient Product Rebates 3.5 14.9 132.9 1.5 0.235 0.026

Existing Residentialb 8.6 31.0 422.2 7.0 0.276 0.020

New Residential 2.2 5.3 157.5 1.6 0.410 0.014

Residential Total 14.2 51.2 712.6 10.0 0.278 0.020


Custom Incentives 6.1 34.3 427.2 3.6 0.176 0.014

Direct Installation 4.1 9.3 118.4 1.5 0.443 0.035

BNI Total 15.4 76.1 925.8 10.2 0.202 0.017

Education & Outreach 1.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Development & Research 2.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other Enabling Strategies 0.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Enabling Strategies Total 4.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 34.1 127.2 1638.4 20.2 0.268 0.021

Residential DSM Programs

Business, Nonprofit and Institutional Programs

Enabling Strategies


Page 19 of 23


Scotia, the lifetime unit cost of achieved energy savings has been below 3 cents per kWh. 1

EfficiencyOne is confident that the programs proposed for 2019 are cost-effective. Because 2

the 2019 DSM Resource Plan is composed of measures and programs continuing from 3

2016-2018, and customer costs for measures are not expected to change significantly from 4

2018, its cost-effectiveness can be demonstrated by maintaining similar unit costs to the 5

2016-2018 Plan. To ensure the 2019 programs continue the trend of being cost-effective, 6

EfficiencyOne analyzed year-over-year program unit costs. 7

8

EfficiencyOne is not proposing to abandon full modelling and standard cost-effectiveness 9

screening tests in future DSM Resource Plans. The 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan will 10

include these calculations and results. 11

12

The proposed 2019 energy and demand savings targets of 127.2 GWh and 20.2 MW are 13

similar to the approved annual averages in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan (135.3 GWh 14

and 20.8 MW). The DSM Resource Plan investment level reflects the $34,050,000 15

identified in the Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, which is an average of the 16

annual 2016-2018 budget targets. 17

18

Appendix B contains additional details on the analysis and input data that EfficiencyOne 19

used to develop the 2019 targets and investment.20


Page 20 of 23


4. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 1

2

4.1 EfficiencyOne Financial Reporting and Internal Controls 3

4

EfficiencyOne has strengthened the reporting and internal control processes of the 5

organization over the past several years. In 2013 and early 2014, EfficiencyOne engaged 6

KPMG for Internal Audit Services, developed the organization’s risk management policy, 7

improved internal management reports, and successfully began transferring external audit 8

procedures from a substantive to a control-based audit. In 2017, EfficiencyOne developed 9

cost management strategies. The purpose of these strategies is to ensure that 10

EfficiencyOne’s costs are reasonable and are aligned with external market comparatives 11

wherever possible. Also, with the approval of the Affiliate Code of Conduct (the Code) in 12

2017, EfficiencyOne developed internal controls to ensure alignment and compliance with 13

the Code, which will be subject to a third-party review. 14

15

4.1.1 Internal Audit Services 16

17

In 2013, EfficiencyOne engaged KPMG to prepare a risk-based internal audit three-year 18

plan, beginning in 2014. KPMG developed the plan according to its understanding of risk 19

areas based on interviews with management and EfficiencyOne’s Board of Directors, as 20

well as a review of background documentation. This plan included internal audits in areas 21

such as procurement activities, the effectiveness of program internal controls, and the 22

monitoring and oversight of third party Delivery Agents. Related audit reports have been 23

filed with the UARB, as requested in its letter pertaining to EfficiencyOne’s 2015 Audited 24

Financial Statements, dated August 5, 2016 (M07495). 25

26

In 2016, KPMG prepared an updated risk assessment and risk profile of the organization. 27

This risk assessment was intended to inform the next three-year internal audit plan for 2017 28

through 2019. In 2017, internal audits were conducted for third party Delivery Agents, IT 29

General Controls, and Cost Containment Processes. The internal audit of Cost Containment 30


Page 21 of 23


Processes was completed and filed with the UARB in 2017, while the internal audits for 1

third party Delivery Agents and IT General Controls will be completed and filed in the first 2

half of 2018. The 2018 internal audits will review Privacy and Procurement Policy 3

compliance, as well as a key process which has yet to be finalized. The 2019 Internal Audit 4

Plan will be determined in late 2018. 5

6

4.1.2 Risk Management Policy 7

8

EfficiencyOne has had a Risk Management Policy in effect since March 2014. The 9

organization has incorporated risk assessment in its decision-making processes as well as 10

for reporting purposes. Risk assessments are completed as part of the annual budget and 11

quarterly forecast procedures and for major procurement decisions. 12

13

4.1.3 Internal Management Reports 14

15

In 2013, the organization began to design monthly internal reporting documents that would 16

provide management with useful, timely, and accurate information within each business 17

area. Monthly actual results are compared to budget and forecast. A monthly operations 18

report provides commentary and explanations for variances for both expenditures and 19

energy savings. 20

21

Over the last several years, EfficiencyOne has implemented detailed procedures for the 22

annual budget, quarterly forecasts, and month end reporting. In 2017, a Cost Containment 23

audit was conducted to review these processes. EfficiencyOne has implemented the 24

recommendations from this audit, resulting in strengthened and improved reporting 25

functions. 26

27

4.1.4 Control Based External Audit Approach 28

29

In 2013, EfficiencyOne transferred accounts payable and payroll to a control-based audit 30


Page 22 of 23


approach. This approach has eliminated the need for further substantive audit procedures 1

to be conducted for both accounts payable and payroll. Substantive audit procedures are 2

required if one or more of the controls do not pass during testing. 3

4

4.2 Electronic Technical Reference Manual 5

6

ENS’s electronic Technical Reference Manual (eTRM) was completed in 2017, allowing 7

for its use in the delivery of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan. ENS will see several operational 8

benefits through its use in 2019, including: 9

• Consistency in assessing measure impacts across programs, and throughout 10

ENS’s measure portfolio; 11

• Enhanced automation of measure impact calculations, with central oversight of 12

the entire measure portfolio through a dedicated technical team approach; 13

• Decreased evaluation effort and impact evaluation costs, due to the ability to 14

centrally inspect ENS’s prescriptive and quasi-prescriptive measures and 15

assumptions; and 16

• Decreased administrative burden to implement changes in measure 17

characterizations associated with the results of the 2018 impact evaluations. 18


Page 23 of 23


5. CONCLUSION 1

2

The 2019 DSM Resource Plan is based on historical experience, the approved 2016-2018 3

DSM Resource Plan and other insights as identified in section 3.1 of this Evidence. The 2019 4

DSM Resource Plan is focused on providing continued electricity efficiency and 5

conservation services to Nova Scotians, through a Supply Agreement with NS Power, based 6

on the average budget and comparable net incremental energy and net peak demand targets 7

from the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. 8

9

The one-year continuation of an existing approved Plan complies with the Electricity Plan 10

Implementation (2015) Act requirements and approach and is consistent with the 11

methodology used for the 2015 DSM Resource Plan filing.18 The 2019 DSM Resource Plan 12

incorporates EfficiencyOne’s experience delivering energy efficiency and conservation 13

activities in Nova Scotia, along with potential market changes such as market saturation. 14

Taking these into consideration will allow EfficiencyOne to continue providing innovative 15

offerings and cost-effective energy savings for Nova Scotians. 16

17

With this Application, EfficiencyOne respectfully requests the UARB approve: 18

• the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, provided as Appendix A; and 19

• the Supply Agreement, provided alongside this Evidence. 20

18 The 2015 DSM Resource Plan was a one-year continuation of the existing 2013-2014 DSM Resource Plan, in

accordance with the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring (2014) Act.

Appendix A

2019 DSM Resource Plan

This page intentionally left blank

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix A

DATE FILED: April 6, 2018 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

2019 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment .............................................................. 2

2. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES .......................................................................... 5

Efficient Product Rebates (Residential) ............................................................................... 6

Existing Residential ............................................................................................................ 7

New Residential ................................................................................................................ 10

3. BUSINESS, NON-PROFIT AND INSTITUTIONAL (BNI) PROGRAMS AND SERVICES .. 11

Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) ........................................................................................ 12

Custom Incentives ............................................................................................................. 13

Direct Installation ............................................................................................................. 15

4. ENABLING STRATEGIES ......................................................................................................... 16

Education and Outreach .................................................................................................... 16

Development and Research ............................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Research........................................................................................................................ 19

4.2.2 Development ................................................................................................................. 20

4.2.3 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) ................................................................. 22

Other Enabling Strategies .................................................................................................. 22

4.3.1 Capacity Building .......................................................................................................... 22

4.3.2 Working with Governments ........................................................................................... 23

4.3.3 Regulatory Affairs ......................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - 2019 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment ................................................................ 3


This page intentionally left blank


DATE FILED: April 6, 2018 Page 1 of 24

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2

EfficiencyOne developed the 2019 DSM Resource Plan for the supply of electricity 3

efficiency and conservation activities to Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NS Power), in accordance 4

with the Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, SNS 2015, c 31, s. 20(1) and the Public 5

Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c 380, s. 79. EfficiencyOne is the current holder of the Efficiency 6

Nova Scotia (ENS) franchise, making it the exclusive supplier of electricity efficiency and 7

conservation activities to NS Power. This document will reference EfficiencyOne with regard 8

to development of the Plan and ENS with regard to DSM activities in Nova Scotia within the 9

2019 continuation year and all previous years. 10

11

The overall 2019 DSM investment, energy, and demand targets were developed based on the 12

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, following the approach established in the 13

Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act. This Act extended the 2016-2018 contractual 14

term to include 2019 and set a corresponding 2019 DSM investment amount of not greater 15

than $34,050,000.1 This investment amount is a continuation of the average planned 2016-16

2018 DSM Resource Plan investment amounts. The energy and demand targets for 2019 are 17

similar to the annual averages in the approved 2016-2018 Plan, and the 2019 Plan includes 18

demand-focused pilots to be developed in collaboration with NS Power. The Electricity Plan 19

Implementation (2015) Act also extended the current ENS Grant of Franchise by one year to 20

December 2025.2 21

22

Among other things, the 2019 Plan is based on: 23

• ENS’s experience; 24

• ENS’s 2016-2018 suite of programs and services; 25





(1).” Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, SNS 2015, c 30, s 2. 2 Ibid, at s 33.





• Program impact and process evaluations, including evaluated savings results, 3

Delivery Agent input and participant feedback. 4

5

The 2019 DSM Resource Plan has been created in a manner similar to the 2015 DSM 6

Resource Plan, which also used a continuation plan approach to prepare a legislated one-year 7

DSM Resource Plan. At that time, the Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Restructuring 8

(2014) Act also prescribed a budget limitation for the 2015 year. Similar to the 2015 Plan, 9

EfficiencyOne used its experience to develop a plan that will continue the trend of evolving 10

programs to provide cost-effective energy and demand savings. EfficiencyOne will continue 11

to consider market conditions, including market transformation, while maintaining high 12

levels of customer satisfaction. 13

14

Beginning in 2018 and continuing into 2019, EfficiencyOne will work with NS Power to 15

negotiate a contract for 2020-2022, which will become the second three-year DSM Resource 16

Plan, in accordance with s. 79J(2)(a) of the Public Utilities Act. 17

18

The 2019 DSM Resource Plan establishes the programs and components for delivery of the 19

2019 portfolio. Section 1 identifies the planned savings and investment targets. Sections 2 20

and 3 provide an overview of programs and services for Residential and Business, Non-Profit 21

and Institutional (BNI) customers. Section 4 outlines Enabling Strategies, including 22

Education and Outreach, Development and Research, and Other Enabling Strategies. 23

24

2019 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment 25

26

In 2019, EfficiencyOne will invest $34.05 million (in 2019 dollars) to achieve 127.2 GWh 27

and 20.2 MW of incremental annual net energy and peak demand savings at the generator. 28

29

Table 1 presents program investment budgets and targets for the planned 2019 portfolio. 30




Currency is expressed in 2019 dollars. 2 Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. 3 a Based on values of program Weighted Average Measure Lives, which have been derived from the 2017 Evaluation process. 4 b Includes participation by low income households. 5

6

Program targets for 2019 are based on a variety of considerations, including the approved 7

2016-2018 Plan, ENS program results from recent years, evaluation results, and program and 8

measure saturation and transformation considerations. 9

10

The total budget, energy and demand savings targets for 2019 are similar to the average 11

annual targets in the approved 2016-2018 Plan. These energy and demand savings targets 12

reflect the trends in both 2016 and 2017. The slight variance from the 2016-2018 annual 13

average targets is due to the allocation of $1.0 million to Enabling Strategies for research and 14

pilots that focus specifically on demand reduction. 15

16

The overall unit cost of the 2019 Plan is increased from the unit cost of recent years. This is 17

largely to enable ENS to diversify its measure mix, which will reduce the level of savings 18

obtained from lighting in the coming years, as discussed at recent DSM Advisory Group 19

meetings. The approved 2016-2018 Plan included the same trend, via an increased focus on 20

programs with lower savings from lighting measures, when compared with previous years. 21

As such, the 2019 Plan continues that desired trend. 22

2019Investment

($ million)

Incremental

Annual Net

Energy Savings

at the Generator

(GWh)

Lifetime Net

Energy Savings

at the Generator

(GWh)a

Incremental Annual

Net Demand

Savings at the

Generator

(MW)

First Year

Unit Cost

($/kWh)

Lifetime

Unit Cost

($/kWh)a



New Residential 2.2 5.3 157.5 1.6 0.410 0.014





BNI Total 15.4 76.1 925.8 10.2 0.202 0.017





Total 34.1 127.2 1638.4 20.2 0.268 0.021



Enabling Strategies



The energy savings unit cost for the 2019 Plan is $0.268/kWh, compared to the average for 1

the approved 2016-2018 Plan of $0.252/kWh. There are a few notable reasons for the change 2

in unit cost in 2019 compared to earlier years: 3

• Enabling Strategies Budget. The 2019 Enabling Strategies budget is $1.7M 4

higher than the level spent in 2017 and $1.5M higher than spending in 2016. This 5

2019 Enabling Strategies budget is required to account for the additional costs 6

that will be incurred in 2019 as a result of the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan 7

Application process. This means a reduction in funding for programs, without 8

the same magnitude of reduction in energy and demand targets. In addition, the 9

investment in two demand reduction pilots increases the unit cost of the 2019 10

Plan. Overall, Enabling Strategies represent 13.2 percent of the 2019 Plan budget, 11

which is above the average of 9.0 percent in the approved 2016-2018 Plan. 12

• 2017 Results. In 2017 the program unit cost (not including Enabling Strategies) 13

was $0.211/kWh, compared to $0.232/kWh in 2019. The increased unit cost for 14

2019 incorporates the continued desire to further diversify ENS’s energy savings 15

portfolio, with less savings coming from lighting projects. 16

• 2016 Energy Savings from Lighting Upgrades. 2016 had the lowest unit cost 17

in recent years, at $0.224/kWh. One of the primary reasons for a lower unit cost 18

in that year was the significant over-performance of the Instant Savings program 19

component. In 2016, Instant Savings had the second lowest unit cost of any 20

program component (after Strategic Energy Management) at $0.121/kWh (not 21

including Enabling Strategies). Instant Savings’ verified 2016 energy savings 22

(34.6 GWh) were significantly higher than the amount targeted in the Plan (8.1 23

GWh), which led to an overall reduction in unit cost for 2016 activities. The 24

majority of these savings came from A-series LEDs; this trend is not expected to 25

continue in 2019 as ENS seeks to diversify its portfolio. 26

• 2015 Energy Savings from the Home Energy Report (HER) Program. A 27

similar situation as the one described above for Instant Savings also occurred in 28

2015, where the HER program achieved significant energy savings (27.2 GWh), 29

at a relatively low cost. This was a large contributing factor to ENS’s low unit 30



cost of $0.231/kWh for 2015. ENS’s 2019 unit cost reflects, among other things, 1

the fact that the HER program is no longer offered. For comparison, if savings 2

and spending for both HER and the Low Income Program are removed from 2015 3

(as neither are currently available), the unit cost for 2015 would rise to 4

$0.270/kWh. 5

6

2. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 7

8

The programs included in the 2019 offerings to the Residential sector are the same as in the 9

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, with changes to marketing names resulting from 10

the merger of certain components: 11

• Efficient Product Rebates (comprised of the Instant Savings and Appliance 12

Retirement program components); 13

• Existing Residential (comprised of the Efficient Product Installation,3 Home 14

Energy Assessment and Green Heat program components); and 15

• New Residential (marketed as New Home Construction). 16

17

ENS will continue to incent a variety of energy efficient products and to encourage residents 18

and landlords to pursue more energy efficiency projects by providing increased support for 19

more complex and/or more substantial upgrades. This will involve providing further 20

assistance for heating systems and building envelope improvements (as examples), for both 21

existing and new buildings. These efforts are intended to diversify the portfolio by decreasing 22

reliance on savings from lighting measures and shifting resources to non-lighting measures. 23

This is reflected in an increase to savings targets, relative to actual results from recent years, 24

for program components such as Home Energy Assessment, which does not offer incentives 25

for lighting. 26

3 In 2017, the Residential Direct Install (RDI) and Rental Properties and Condos (RPC) program components merged

to form Efficient Product Installation.



Efficient Product Rebates (Residential) 1

2

Efficient Product Rebates is made up of two program components which are available to all 3

homeowners and renters across the province: 4

• Appliance Retirement; and 5

• Instant Savings. 6

7

Appliance Retirement seeks to responsibly decommission and recycle functioning, but less-8

efficient, home appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and room air conditioners. This 9

component has proven to be an effective offering in ENS’s portfolio. In 2019, ENS intends 10

to continue retiring old inefficient appliances in Nova Scotia. ENS also recognizes that at 11

some point in the future this market will become saturated (as more and more appliances are 12

retired) to the point of no longer being cost effective in its current state. 13

14

In an effort to sustain cost-effectiveness in 2019, marketing will play a key role in 15

encouraging Nova Scotians to take advantage of this service, in addition to ENS seeking 16

other sources for appliance retirements. ENS anticipates Appliance Retirement will achieve 17

fewer savings in 2019 compared to the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. This is 18

based on the historical trend of a reduced number of appliances being replaced each year. 19

20

Instant Savings provides in-store rebates on a variety of energy efficient products such as 21

lighting and appliances. This program component is delivered by partnering with a large 22

number of retailers across the province, and focuses on promoting ENERGY STAR® 23

certified products where possible. 24

25

A key consideration for 2019 will be the market evolution of LED lighting technologies. One 26

of Instant Savings’ intents is to help transform the LED lighting market to the point where 27

rebates are no longer needed (i.e., where a customer purchases the efficient product, even in 28

the absence of rebates). ENS will consider a variety of information when deciding what 29

rebates are appropriate. Incentive setting research completed in 2017 and 2018 will help 30



inform decisions on rebate levels, and may result in some rebates being removed from 1

products. 2

3

ENS anticipates an increase in 2019 net incremental energy and peak demand savings when 4

compared to the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. This outlook is influenced, in 5

part, by the energy savings achieved in 2016 and 2017. In 2019, ENS anticipates Instant 6

Savings will realize significantly lower energy savings than the levels achieved in 2016 and 7

2017. The majority of savings in recent years came from A-series LEDs; this trend is not 8

expected to continue in 2019 as ENS seeks to diversify its portfolio. To counter a reduction 9

in savings by potentially removing rebates on some lighting products, ENS will continue to 10

investigate other energy efficient technologies to add to the program, helping homeowners 11

and renters save on their electricity bills. 12

13

Existing Residential 14

15

Existing Residential is made up of the following three program components: 16

• Home Energy Assessment; 17

• Green Heat; and 18

• Efficient Product Installation. 19

20

Existing Residential encourages participants to make cost-effective energy efficiency 21

changes to their homes. This program serves all types of residential dwellings in Nova Scotia, 22

including single detached houses, duplexes, townhouses, mobile/mini homes, rental housing, 23

and other multi-family dwellings including apartments and condominiums. 24

25

The Existing Residential program includes a variety of energy efficient upgrade options for 26

customers. For example, homeowners are encouraged to complete upgrades to their building 27

envelope or Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems. Given the potential 28

significance of these energy savings in relation to electricity bills, ENS has placed more of a 29

focus on these upgrades in recent years by adding new measures and reducing barriers to 30



participation. This trend will continue in 2019, with two program components (Home Energy 1

Assessment and Green Heat) having energy saving targets that are higher than recent years. 2

In addition to building envelope and HVAC improvements, ENS offers the direct installation 3

of lower-cost energy saving technologies (e.g., lighting, domestic hot water system upgrades, 4

and smart power strips) for homeowners and renters. 5

6

In 2019, ENS will continue to use DSM funds to support a First Nations pilot program that 7

is being launched in 2018 and primarily funded by the Province of Nova Scotia. The DSM-8

funded portion of the pilot will seek to deliver significant electrical energy savings to on-9

reserve, Band-owned homes, where the household is income-qualified. DSM funds will be 10

used to conduct energy assessments and complete significant energy efficiency upgrades for 11

electrically heated homes, focusing on building envelope and/or heating system upgrades. 12

The pilot will be offered in all 13 First Nations communities across the Province, with priority 13

being given to the upgrades that result in the most significant energy savings. 14

15

Home Energy Assessment has been a staple energy efficiency program in Nova Scotia for 16

over ten years. Homeowners begin with a home energy assessment conducted by a qualified 17

service organization, with the majority of that cost subsidized by ENS. A tailored report is 18

provided and incentives are available for qualifying upgrades to the building envelope (e.g., 19

insulation, air sealing, and windows/doors), space heating/cooling, domestic water heating, 20

and ventilation systems. 21

22

Home Energy Assessment is delivered through a partnership with Natural Resources Canada 23

(NRCan)-approved Service Organizations. Homeowners interested in gaining an 24

understanding of the various energy-saving options for their home, along with a desire to 25

make significant changes to their electricity bills, are encouraged to participate. 26

27

The energy saving target for Home Energy Assessment is higher than results in recent years: 28

it is almost double the energy savings achieved in 2016 and roughly one-third higher than 29



the result in 2017. Increasing the focus on this program component is one way that ENS plans 1

to diversify energy savings, with less focus on lighting measures. 2

3

Green Heat offers incentives for space and water heating systems similar to those of Home 4

Energy Assessment. However, Green Heat does not require a home visit and offers more 5

simplified access to rebates for the purchase of efficient space and water heating systems 6

which offset electricity use in the home. As with 2016-2018, ENS will continue to review 7

additional technologies to help encourage electricity efficiency and conservation activities, 8

including other existing or emerging technologies. Efforts will also be investigated and tested 9

to encourage greater participation. 10

11

Similar to Home Energy Assessment, the 2019 energy saving target for Green Heat is 12

increased compared to recent years: more than 20 percent higher than the level achieved in 13

2016, and 60 percent higher than the level achieved in 2017. Also similar to Home Energy 14

Assessment, Green Heat does not offer incentives for lighting upgrades. 15

16

In 2019, ENS will continue to offer either rebates and/or financing as incentives for Home 17

Energy Assessment and to offer rebates for Green Heat participants. ENS plans to continue 18

to grow both components over time, as they are two of the main Residential components that 19

can help customers to achieve significant savings on their electricity bills. 20

21

Finally, Efficient Product Installation offers low-cost energy efficient upgrades to 22

participants at no cost. Efficient Product Installation is comprised of the former Rental 23

Properties and Condos program component, which focused on larger buildings with more 24

rental units, and the Residential Direct Install component, which focused on homes and 25

residential buildings with a smaller number of units. These two components merged to form 26

Efficient Product Installation on January 1, 2017, to simplify administration and facilitate the 27

offering of a more consistent line of products in households across Nova Scotia. Both 28

components were effective in past years, helping tens of thousands of Nova Scotians to-date. 29



Any homeowner or renter (via their landlord) in Nova Scotia is eligible for free installation 1

of energy-efficient products such as lighting, upgrades to their electric domestic hot water 2

system, and other electricity-saving devices. Based on housing levels in Nova Scotia and past 3

participation, ENS estimates the Efficient Product Installation saturation level to be 4

approximately 33 percent by the end of 2017. 5

6

ENS plans to use Efficient Product Installation to continue to generate a high level of energy 7

savings in 2019, albeit less than the 2016-2018 average. This reduction is based on ENS’s 8

experience, as it is becoming more challenging over time to gain new participants. Similarly, 9

future participants may also adopt a certain level of efficient lighting on their own, or through 10

program components such as Instant Savings. ENS will continue to seek out new energy 11

efficient measures and other methods to help participants cost-effectively save more 12

electricity in their homes. 13

14

New Residential 15

16

The New Residential program aims to increase the number of homes built in Nova Scotia 17

that exceed the energy efficiency levels of homes built to minimum building code energy 18

performance requirements. In addition, the program aims to increase the number of homes 19

installing ENERGY STAR® certified products. The ideal time to incorporate energy 20

efficiency into any building is during the design and early construction phases. In fact, some 21

upgrade options (e.g., adding more insulation to walls) can be very challenging if not 22

completed at the onset, resulting in lost opportunities for energy savings. This makes it even 23

more important to build as efficient a home as possible from the start. The measure life of 24

upgrades and the overall level of energy savings is significant in New Residential. For these 25

reasons, ENS will continue its efforts to grow its energy savings from the New Residential 26

program. 27

28

For most participants, detailed design advice is provided by ENS staff and NRCan registered 29

Energy Advisors before construction of a home. This advice is based on an energy analysis 30



conducted by the registered Energy Advisor using home energy modeling software, which 1

uses construction plans to project the energy consumption of the home. The registered Energy 2

Advisor then provides tailored recommendations and projected energy savings for a variety 3

of upgrade options. Upon completion of the new home, a final evaluation is conducted by 4

the registered Energy Advisor, giving the home its energy rating. 5

6

ENS anticipates that the New Residential program will continue to gradually evolve. While 7

many participants are expected to take part in the historical program structure above (with an 8

EnerGuide rating or ENERGY STAR® performance level), ENS anticipates offering 9

incentives for even higher-performing homes, potentially based on Passive House or other 10

near net-zero energy rating systems. Incentives provided will evolve as the market transforms 11

and if further changes are made to the Building Code. 12

13

New Residential energy and demand targets for 2019 are more than 30 percent higher than 14

the savings achieved in 2016, and more than 50 percent higher than those of 2017. To grow 15

the program in 2019, ENS will use a variety of strategies, which may include incentives, 16

outreach to builder and permit offices, and contractor education and training, among other 17

options. This is another strategy to help diversify energy savings. 18

19

3. BUSINESS, NON-PROFIT AND INSTITUTIONAL (BNI) PROGRAMS AND 20

SERVICES 21

22

The BNI programs provide a combination of technical, educational, and financial support to 23

help customers incorporate energy efficiency into their businesses. This can include 24

influencing short-term decisions as well as incorporating energy efficiency into ongoing 25

business practices. 26

27

The BNI initiatives include a variety of services to encourage customers to make energy 28

efficient decisions ranging from standard purchases (e.g., choosing one technology over 29



another when making a purchase) to more in-depth and complex decisions (e.g., constructing 1

a new building or completing significant retrofits to an existing facility). 2

3

In 2019, ENS will continue to leverage and grow the support of qualified industry 4

professionals to promote and deliver BNI initiatives. These professionals have existing 5

relationships and the required experience and expertise in their respective fields, and are 6

essential to helping customers understand and make cost-effective decisions on energy 7

efficiency initiatives. This includes working with members of the Efficiency Trade Network 8

(ETN). Members of this network receive training and updates on ENS initiatives, and are a 9

valuable source of promotion for both efficient measures and ENS services. For more 10

information on the ETN and associated initiatives, please refer to section 4.3.1, below. 11

12

The programs included in the 2019 offerings to the BNI sector are the same as in the approved 13

2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, and will continue to evolve with market conditions and 14

participant needs: 15

• Efficient Product Rebates (marketed as Business Energy Rebates); 16

• Custom Incentives (comprised of the Custom, Energy Management Information 17

Systems (EMIS), and Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program components); 18

and 19

• Direct Installation (marketed as Small Business Energy Solutions). 20

21

Efficient Product Rebates (BNI) 22

23

The BNI Efficient Product Rebates program provides customers with financial incentives 24

(rebates or financing) to purchase approved energy efficient products. The rebates provided 25

for each product are in most cases prescriptive, set in advance, and based on the energy 26

performance and standard application of the product. Rebates are offered through point-of-27

purchase discounts through a province-wide network of distribution partners, or through mail-28

in applications. In some cases, rebates will be adjusted to reflect the electricity-use impacts 29



corresponding to actual installed conditions, based on information provided via the mail-in 1

process. 2

3

A variety of measures are supported in this program. The list of measures will continue to 4

evolve over time, and is expected to include measures such as: lighting; HVAC systems and 5

controls; agricultural equipment; variable speed drives for motors; compressed air; 6

refrigeration; kitchen / food service and IT technologies. The energy savings target for 2019 7

is very close to the average annual target in the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. 8

9

The Efficient Product Rebates program works with businesses, non-profits, institutions, 10

multi-unit residential landlords and others, in an effort to encourage customers to adopt the 11

more energy efficient option when making purchasing decisions. ENS supports products in 12

both retrofit and new construction projects. Similar to the Instant Savings component in 13

Residential, as a specific efficient technology becomes more of a standard practice, ENS will 14

regularly update its level and type of support for a given product. The 2017 and 2018 15

incentive setting research is expected to help inform incentive decisions for products included 16

in this program in 2019. In recent years the majority of the savings from this program has 17

been from lighting upgrades, and ENS plans to review additional measure options, as well as 18

consider market trends when establishing lighting incentives. 19

20

Custom Incentives 21

22

The Custom Incentives program consists of the following three program components: 23

• Custom; 24

• Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS); and 25

• Strategic Energy Management (SEM). 26

27

The Custom Incentives program works directly with customers to identify and implement 28

unique and cost-effective electrical energy and demand saving measures on a case-by-case 29

basis, where incentives from other programs do not apply. Custom Incentives offer a 30



simplified customer experience for projects that are often more complex than upgrades under 1

other ENS programs. 2

3

Custom Incentives involves a one-on-one working relationship between ENS and the 4

customer. This allows for customized technical and financial support, with energy and 5

demand savings being considered on a case-by-case basis. Supported measures achieve 6

savings in a variety of end uses such as processes, compressed air, building envelope, HVAC 7

equipment, controls, refrigeration, motors, and more. 8

9

The Custom Incentives program offers a variety of services to customers, including: 10

• Helping customers identify and secure qualified third-party sources of technical 11

expertise; 12

• Providing rebates on the cost of initial scoping studies and/or detailed feasibility 13

studies; 14

• Providing incentives for technical assistance to achieve more efficient designs in new 15

facilities; 16

• Providing financial incentives (rebates or financing) for implementing cost-effective 17

electrical energy efficiency projects; 18

• Providing incentives for the use of best practices in systems commissioning; 19

• Providing technical and/or financial incentives for improvements to compressed air 20

systems; and 21

• Supporting customers through technical and financial assistance to better understand 22

and manage the energy used in their facilities, and to make a variety of changes to 23

reduce energy use. 24

25

Custom Incentives participants are generally recruited via networking, referrals and direct 26

contact. On-Site Energy Managers (OEMs) also play an important role in identifying 27

potential Custom Incentives projects; the OEM service places a trained energy manager at a 28

customer’s workplace, to develop energy management plans and facilitate participation in 29



ENS programs. In many instances, due to the complexity and size of the upgrades, there can 1

be long lead times for these projects. 2

3

In some cases, customers can benefit from multiple offerings within the Custom Incentives 4

program, and are encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity to further reduce energy 5

use. All three of the Custom Incentives program components will continue in 2019, with the 6

overall program targets growing in relation to energy savings of recent years and remaining 7

similar to the 2016-2018 Plan. This is another method by which ENS intends to further 8

diversify its energy savings, as the level of lighting savings from Custom will continue to be 9

relatively low. 10

11

Direct Installation 12

13

The Direct Installation program (marketed as Small Business Energy Solutions or “SBES”) 14

has undergone a variety of changes in recent years. 15

16

Typical participants include small offices, retail shops, convenience and grocery stores, 17

service stations, restaurants, lodgings, landlords (common spaces in multi-unit residential 18

buildings), non-profit organizations, cafeterias, pharmacies, bakeries, and farms. 19

20

Under SBES, participants are eligible for incentives (both rebates and financing) for 21

installing energy efficient measures. Some participants are eligible to receive an energy audit 22

as part of their involvement in the program, providing them with a list of upgrade 23

opportunities. Other participants complete the do-it-yourself (DIY) option, with projects 24

identified by contractors or the participant. Rebates are paid after project completion and 25

verification. SBES offers rebates of up to 60 percent of participant costs, in addition to 26

financing repaid on NS Power bills for a term of up to two years. 27

28

A variety of measures are included in SBES, such as: lighting, building envelope, HVAC 29

upgrades, and upgrades to kitchen and laundry facilities. SBES will continue to consider 30



support for new non-lighting measures that will further diversify sources of energy savings. 1

Furthermore, the program will continue to evolve based on participant feedback and results 2

from the most recent changes to the program. 3

4

4. ENABLING STRATEGIES 5

6

Enabling Strategies are an essential component of this DSM Plan, and are required for ENS 7

to meet energy and demand savings targets. In this and other plans, EfficiencyOne has and 8

will continue to use Enabling Strategies where it can invest in, among other things, research 9

and programs that help inform energy and cost savings to Nova Scotians. ENS’s 2019 10

Enabling Strategies will include: 11

• Education and Outreach; 12

• Development and Research; and 13

• Other Enabling Strategies (Capacity Building, Working with Governments and 14

Regulatory Affairs). 15

16

Enabling Strategies make possible future savings within programs and services by meeting 17

the following objectives: 18

• increase awareness of, and education about, DSM programs and services, 19

driving participation; 20

• evolve DSM programs and services by innovating and improving delivery of 21

these services to Nova Scotians; and 22

• drive market transformation. 23

24

Education and Outreach 25

26

Since 2008, Education and Outreach has been an important part of electricity DSM Plans in 27

Nova Scotia. These strategies will continue through 2019 to help increase program 28

participation, foster a culture of efficiency throughout the province, and educate students, 29

families, and businesses on the benefits of energy efficiency. Energy savings are not 30



attributed directly to Education and Outreach activities. Rather, energy savings are captured 1

through participation in the individual DSM programs that benefit from these broader 2

activities. 3

4

By creating a culture of efficiency throughout the province, Nova Scotians learn how and 5

why it is important to adopt energy efficient behaviours that will benefit themselves and their 6

communities. This behaviour change will encourage participation in DSM programs and 7

encourage Nova Scotians to live a more efficient and sustainable lifestyle. A targeted 8

approach to businesses educates small businesses across the province on the potential for 9

energy savings and reduced operation costs from energy efficiency. 10

11

Education and Outreach strategies for 2019 will include building on past and current 12

activities, research and feedback from Nova Scotians, as well as participating in public 13

speaking engagements, trade shows, and social media. Areas of focus will include: 14

• Educating customers on the value provided by electricity efficiency and 15

conservation and ways to achieve cost-effective net incremental energy and 16

peak demand savings that lower their electric utility bills; 17

• Educating students on energy efficiency, focusing on its economic and 18

environmental benefits; 19

• Increasing public awareness of the benefits of participating in electricity 20

efficiency and conservation programs; 21

• Enabling and encouraging a culture of efficiency and the adoption of energy 22

efficiency as a social norm through a focus on individual and community-based 23

commitments to energy efficiency; 24

• Connecting potential customers to relevant programs and services; and 25

• Learning from customers, to ensure their experiences and advice are 26

incorporated to continuously improve programs and services. 27

28

The following initiatives support the strategies identified above: 29



• Continual enhancement of ENS’s website to expand the availability of technical 1

information, program materials, assistance, and links to other resources; 2

• Complementary social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn) 3

strategies to drive awareness of energy efficiency and ENS’s programs and 4

services; 5

• Sharing Nova Scotians’ energy efficiency success stories to encourage others 6

to participate; 7

• Continual development of the Efficiency Trade Network (trade partners) to 8

build capacity and increase program participation through training, workshops, 9

information sharing, professional development, etc.; 10

• Nurturing and developing key partnerships with community groups, 11

associations and aligned organizations; 12

• Attending community events, speaking engagements, presentations, and 13

information sessions to encourage individuals, businesses, and organizations to 14

participate in energy efficiency programs; 15

• Attending Home Shows and Trade Shows across Nova Scotia to encourage 16

program participation; 17

• Supporting the Green Schools Nova Scotia program, to supplement learning 18

and build awareness among youth about energy efficiency and to create a 19

culture of efficiency in Nova Scotia; 20

• Monitoring media stories relating to energy efficiency; 21

• Supporting the development of energy efficiency courses at post-secondary 22

institutions such as Dalhousie University and Saint Mary’s University; 23

• Supporting educational workshops for non-profits and community groups 24

across the province; and 25

• Pursuing and supporting additional activities as opportunities arise. 26



Development and Research 1

2

ENS is committed to achieving cost-effective incremental net energy and peak demand 3

savings for its customers. This requires continued research and development activities in 4

2019. These activities will: 5

• support the evolution of DSM programs and future DSM Resource Plans via 6

research and development initiatives; and 7

• improve customer service and engagement through Customer Relationship 8

Management via development activities. 9

10

4.2.1 Research 11

12

Throughout 2019, ENS will conduct research to gain further market insights and stay current 13

with emerging technologies and initiatives from other jurisdictions. Findings will help guide 14

program decisions by providing a greater understanding of new technologies and potential 15

offerings, which can then be used for new pilots, program updates, or other innovative 16

initiatives. This is especially useful for informing business decisions, considering the need to 17

evolve programs response to potential market transformation and saturation of some 18

technologies. Insights from participants and the general public can help ENS shape program 19

offerings, by removing barriers to adopting energy efficiency initiatives, while maintaining 20

high levels of participant satisfaction. 21

22

One relatively new area of market research pertains to incentive levels. ENS plans to continue 23

its incentive setting research in 2018, which will add rigour to assessing 2019 incentive 24

levels. The results of this research may also help further inform additional research plans to 25

ensure ENS continues to set appropriate incentive levels. Findings from this research will 26

help ENS maintain a high standard of service delivery and support the effectiveness of its 27

portfolio. 28



Additional research efforts will include an ongoing examination of the trends of ENS 1

activities. Understanding the successes and challenges of ENS efforts is critical to identifying 2

areas for improvements. For example, findings may identify opportunities to help customers 3

achieve deeper savings (higher energy savings per participant), or enable ENS to realize cost 4

savings in the promotion and delivery of its programs. 5

6

4.2.2 Development 7

8

ENS will continue working with First Nations communities in Nova Scotia. Through both 9

DSM and Provincially-funded activities, ENS has worked with First Nations communities 10

on a variety of energy efficiency projects and programs. In 2019, ENS will continue to work 11

closely with First Nations communities to gather feedback on the development and design of 12

energy efficiency and conservation programs. This may lead to ENS exploring opportunities 13

for potential future programs and services. 14

15

ENS will develop pilots targeting demand reductions in 2019. The importance of including 16

peak demand reductions as part of the 2019 DSM Plan is due to continued firm demand 17

growth in Nova Scotia over the past number of years. ENS has included a budget for demand 18

reduction pilots as part of this Application and looks forward to collaborating with NS Power 19

on these initiatives.4 20

21

Demand reduction activities have the primary goal of reducing demand, whereas energy 22

efficiency activities have the primary goal of reducing energy consumption. Demand 23

reduction initiatives help customers reduce their demand, which can in turn reduce NS 24

Power’s peak demand. This can also help demand-billed customers lower their electricity 25

bills. As such, demand reduction initiatives have the potential to reduce facility peak billing 26

4 The Public Utilities Act (s. 79A(b)(iii)) defines electricity efficiency and conservation activities as

including activities that reduce demand during NS Power’s periods of highest demand.



and/or customer demand in periods within and outside of the NS Power system coincident 1

peak period. 2

3

In addition to the 2019 demand reduction pilots, which will explore options to reduce both 4

facility peak demand (where applicable) and NS Power system peak demand, ENS 5

anticipates exploring demand-focused activities and best practices undertaken in leading 6

jurisdictions, in collaboration with NS Power for potential future DSM programs. The 2019 7

budget includes $1.0 million for exploring demand reduction and developing and 8

implementing pilot activities. 9

10

Although planning is in the early stages, ENS is considering the development of two demand 11

reduction pilots. One pilot would be focused on residential customers, while the other would 12

focus on BNI customers. These pilot activities will serve to demonstrate the benefits of 13

demand reduction activities, including decreased capacity-related costs for all customer 14

groups, access to time-of-use rates (for certain customer classes), and the direct benefits of 15

reductions in billed demand (for those customer groups billed for facility peak demand). 16

17

Potential measures currently being considered include, but are not limited to: 18

• Incentives for residential and BNI electric thermal storage systems; 19

• Incentives for demand-limiting hot-water systems; 20

• The addition of demand-focused measures gaining eligibility under the Custom 21

program; and 22

• The addition of demand-focused measures within prescriptive BNI programs. 23

24

ENS anticipates the selection of pilot activities will be further informed by initial planning 25

and consultation with interested stakeholders, including the DSM Advisory Group. 26



4.2.3 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) 1

2

An improved information tracking system is expected to be complete and in full operation 3

before the start of 2019. In addition to reducing information management costs (through 4

easier access to information, improved quality data, and automation), the system will provide 5

the technical foundation for evolving ENS’s customer-centric approach to service delivery 6

and marketing and communications. CRM practices and principles are widely used to 7

maintain and improve relationships with customers, with the goal to drive loyalty and 8

engagement with an organization. Analysis of customer and other information captured in 9

the new system will guide how ENS approaches existing and potential participants, and 10

facilitate program design and delivery decisions, leading to improved services and participant 11

interactions. 12

13

Other Enabling Strategies 14

15

The Other Enabling Strategies category includes the following sub-categories: 16

• Capacity Building; 17

• Working with Governments; and 18

• Regulatory Affairs. 19

20

4.3.1 Capacity Building 21

22

In 2019, ENS will focus efforts on capacity building in Nova Scotia by enhancing existing 23

training and quality assurance for Delivery Agents and building industry capacity through 24

its ETN. 25

26

ENS will continue to train Delivery Agents to directly answer participant inquiries and 27

provide energy efficiency information related to the relevant services for each participant. 28



In 2019, ENS will continue to build industry capacity through training and educating the 1

ETN through events such as the Bright Business Conference and Awards and hosting other 2

specific energy efficiency focused training. ENS will also continue to collaborate with 3

industry partners by offering ETN members discounted rates for related training 4

opportunities. 5

6

ENS will also focus on providing the details of its offerings through pre-recorded modules 7

as well as in-person events across the province for large program updates to ensure questions 8

or concerns are addressed in a timely matter. 9

10

The Network News will continue to provide ETN members with advanced notice of ENS 11

initiatives and to solicit their feedback. Newsletter topics include program updates, 12

procurement opportunities, pilot outcomes, and industry trends. 13

14

4.3.2 Working with Governments 15

16

In 2019, ENS will continue to support the development and implementation of energy 17

efficiency codes and standards, in collaboration with both the Provincial and Federal 18

governments, as well as other stakeholders. This includes supporting the Provincial 19

government in introducing new codes and regulations, and providing expertise and market data 20

to both levels of government where appropriate. In addition, ENS expects to continue to 21

support the Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA’s) efforts to develop and update relevant 22

energy efficiency-related standards through active participation in their Steering Committee on 23

Performance and Energy Efficiency Standards (SCOPEER). ENS anticipates it will also assist 24

the CSA at the committee (a standing committee for a particular end-use [e.g., HVAC]) or 25

Technical Subcommittee (struck for the development of a particular standard) levels, as 26

opportunities arise. 27



4.3.3 Regulatory Affairs 1

2

Regulatory Affairs activities include UARB processes, DSM Advisory Group initiatives and 3

stakeholder consultation work, industry research, and legal work relating to ENS initiatives. 4

5

In 2019, Regulatory Affairs initiatives will include: 6

• Negotiating the 2020-2022 DSM Resource Plan with NS Power and gaining 7

stakeholder and UARB-approval of the same; 8

• Developing and/or filing regular report updates with the UARB on topics including: 9

o 2019 Quarterly Reports; 10

o 2018 Evaluation Reports; 11

o 2018 Annual Progress Report; 12

o 2018 Audited Financial Statements; 13

o 2019 Historical-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis; 14

o evaluation and verification recommendation updates; and 15

o other studies, reports, and updates, as appropriate. 16

17

Throughout 2019, ENS will continue to host DSM Advisory Group meetings and to work 18

closely with stakeholders to discuss ongoing initiatives, as appropriate. Other engagements 19

will include working with the Evaluation and Verification Consultants to facilitate their 20

efforts and pursuing commitments arising from the 2019 DSM Resource Plan regulatory 21

process. 22

Appendix B

2019 DSM Resource Plan Development Approach and Details

This page is intentionally left blank

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix B

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2019 DSM RESOURCE PLAN SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1

1.1 Energy Savings and Investment ........................................................................................ 1

2. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS .......................................... 3

2.1 Efficient Product Rebates (Residential) ............................................................................ 3

2.2 Existing Residential ........................................................................................................... 4

2.3 New Residential ................................................................................................................. 5

3. BNI PROGRAM TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS ............................................................. 5

3.1 Efficient Products Rebates (BNI) ...................................................................................... 5

3.2 Custom Incentives ............................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Direct Installation .............................................................................................................. 6

4. DATA SOURCES .................................................................................................................... 7

5. COST EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................................................ 8

5.1 Portfolio Consistency with the Cost-Effective 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan .............. 9

5.2 First-Year Unit Cost Comparison .................................................................................... 12

5.3 Cost-Effectiveness Summary .......................................................................................... 15

6. ENABLING STRATEGIES .................................................................................................. 15

7. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE.............................................................................. 16

8. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 17


ii


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - 2019 DSM Resource Plan Savings and Investment .......................................................... 1

Table 2 - Actual 2008-2017 Energy Savings and Planned 2018-2019 Energy Savings .................. 2

Table 3 - Actual 2008-2017 Demand Savings and Planned 2018-2019 Demand Savings .............. 2

Table 4 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average Annual Energy Savings to

2019 Annual Energy Savings by Program ..................................................................................... 10

Table 5 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average Annual Demand Savings to

2019 Annual Demand Savings by Program ................................................................................... 11

Table 6 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average Annual Investment to 2019

Annual Investment by Program ...................................................................................................... 12

Table 7 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average First-Year Energy Unit Cost

to 2019 First-Year Energy Unit Cost by Program and Portfolio.................................................... 13

Table 8 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average First-Year Demand Unit

Cost to 2019 First-Year Demand Unit Cost by Program and Portfolio ......................................... 14

Table 9 - Relative Change in First-Year Unit Costs from Approved 2016-2018 DSM

Resource Plan to 2019 DSM Resource Plan .................................................................................. 14



1. 2019 DSM RESOURCE PLAN SUMMARY 1

2

The 2019 DSM Resource Plan, presented in Appendix A, identifies DSM programs, 3

services, strategies, investments, and energy and demand targets. The plan is cost- effective 4

and is based upon the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, ENS historical results, 5

ENS experience, and anticipated changes for 2019 related to an evolving energy efficiency 6

market. 7

8

1.1 Energy Savings and Investment 9

10

Table 1 provides a summary of the energy and demand savings, and investment for the 2019 11

DSM Resource Plan. 12

13


Currency is expressed in 2019 dollars. 15

Columns may not add correctly, due to rounding. 16 a Based on values of program Weighted Average Measure Lives, which have been derived from the 2017 Evaluation process. 17 b Includes participation by low income households. 18

19

Table 2 and Table 3 compare the 2019 DSM Resource Plan energy and demand saving 20

targets to verified results for 2008 through 2016, evaluated results for 2017 and the planned 21

savings for 2018. 22

2019Investment

($ million)

Incremental

Annual Net

Energy Savings

at the Generator

(GWh)

Lifetime Net

Energy Savings

at the Generator

(GWh)a

Incremental Annual

Net Demand

Savings at the

Generator

(MW)

First Year

Unit Cost

($/kWh)

Lifetime

Unit Cost

($/kWh)a



New Residential 2.2 5.3 157.5 1.6 0.410 0.014





BNI Total 15.4 76.1 925.8 10.2 0.202 0.017





Total 34.1 127.2 1638.4 20.2 0.268 0.021



Enabling Strategies



Table 2 – Actual 2008-2017 Energy Savings and Planned 2018-2019 Energy Savings 1

2

Table 3 - Actual 2008-2017 Demand Savings and Planned 2018-2019 Demand Savings 3

4

The overall 2019 DSM investment is based on the average from the approved 2016-2018 5

DSM Resource Plan, following the approach established in the Electricity Plan 6

Implementation (2015) Act. This Act extended the 2016-2018 term to include 2019 and set 7

a corresponding 2019 DSM investment amount of not greater than $34,050,000.1 This 8





(1).” Electricity Plan Implementation (2015) Act, SNS 2015, c 30, s 20.



investment amount is a continuation of the average planned 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan 1

investment amounts. This ensures certainty around the amount of DSM spending for the 2

duration of NS Power’s Rate Stability Period (2017-2019, inclusive). The Electricity Plan 3

Implementation (2015) Act also extended the current ENS Grant of Franchise by one year 4

to December 2025,2 enabling the next two DSM Resource Plans to remain as three-year 5

agreements in compliance with the Public Utilities Act. 6

7

2. RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS 8

9

2.1 Efficient Product Rebates (Residential) 10

11

This program contains the Instant Savings and Appliance Retirement components. Overall, 12

the energy savings target in 2019 is 19 percent higher than that of the annual average in the 13

2016-2018 Plan. While this is an increase over the approved Plan, it represents significant 14

reductions in energy savings from lighting, when compared to the 2016 and 2017 results. 15

16

Instant Savings’ targets were derived by considering the approved targets in the 2016-2018 17

DSM Resource Plan, results from recent years, and an expectation that the market will 18

continue to evolve, with a likelihood of some LED products not being included in 2019 due 19

to a drop in retail prices and potential market transformation. The 2019 Instant Savings unit 20

cost is expected to be lower than that of the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, and 21

also of the 2014 and 2015 investments. However, the unit cost is expected to be higher than 22

the actual 2016 result, as 2016 was a unique year for Instant Savings with higher than 23

anticipated energy savings. Overall, the energy savings target for this component is higher 24

than that of the annual average of the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, but significantly 25

lower than the 2016 and 2017 results. 26

27

Appliance Retirement energy savings are expected to decrease in relation to both the 28

approved 2016-2018 annual investments and actual expenditures from recent years. This is 29

2 Ibid at s 33.



due to a decreasing number of old appliances in the market. To offset this decrease, ENS 1

will continue to consider other potential participants for the service. The unit cost for the 2

program component is higher than in the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, but 3

lower than the 2016 unit cost. 4

5

2.2 Existing Residential 6

7

Existing Residential is comprised of the Home Energy Assessment, Green Heat and 8

Efficient Product Installation components. The 2019 Existing Residential Program has an 9

energy saving target that is 26 percent lower than the annual average in the approved 2016-10

2018 Plan. 11

12

The energy savings target for the Home Energy Assessment component is lower than the 13

average for the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, however, still represents a 14

significant increase over recent years. The unit cost is higher than that of the approved 15

2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, in an effort to more closely match the actual unit cost of 16

recent years. A need for increased participation and the potential addition of new measures 17

are factored into the 2019 budget and targets. 18

19

Similarly, the 2019 Green Heat component energy savings target is lower than that of the 20

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, but higher than the actuals from 2016 and 2017. 21

The unit cost is higher than that in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan; this change was 22

informed by unit cost results in recent years. 23

24

The 2019 Efficient Product Installation component includes all residential direct 25

installations (single family homes and multi-unit buildings). The unit cost is similar to that 26

of the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan for the two components that were merged 27

to create this offering (Residential Direct Install and Rental Properties and Condos), and 28

similar to 2016 and 2017. The energy savings target has been reduced, relative to the 2016-29

2018 Plan. 30



2.3 New Residential 1

2

New Residential consists of the New Home Construction component. The New Residential 3

program energy savings target is higher than that in the approved 2016-2018 DSM 4

Resource Plan (35%), and actual results from recent years. This change is due to the desire 5

to increase participation in the program in an effort to further diversify energy savings and 6

help more Nova Scotians make energy efficient decisions for their home during the design 7

phase (the ideal time). The unit cost is on par with that of 2017, but higher than the approved 8

2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. This can be attributed to a recent increase in incentive 9

levels further to participant, Evaluation, and Verification recommendations, in an effort to 10

encourage greater program participation. 11

12

3. BNI PROGRAM TARGETS AND INVESTMENTS 13

14

3.1 Efficient Products Rebates (BNI) 15

16

BNI Efficient Product Rebates consists of the Business Energy Rebates component. The 17

investment and energy savings targets for BNI Efficient Product Rebates have been reduced 18

slightly from the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, by 9 percent and 1 percent, 19

respectively. The unit cost remains close to that of recent years. As lighting makes up the 20

majority of energy savings within this program, efforts will be made to further diversify its 21

measures. To reflect the potential reduction in savings from lighting, the 2019 energy 22

saving targets were reduced compared to the program’s historical performance. 23

24

3.2 Custom Incentives 25

26

Custom Incentives consists of the program components: Custom; Energy Management 27

Information Systems; and Strategic Energy Management. The 2019 Custom Incentives 28

program energy savings target is the same as the average annual energy savings in the 29

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. The unit cost, however, has been reduced, 30

following the trend from recent years. Custom has the potential to help BNI customers 31



achieve more significant energy savings (for both existing buildings and for new 1

construction). In addition, only a small portion of Custom savings are lighting-based, and 2

as such are less likely to be affected by the associated transforming market. While the target 3

is the same as in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, it represents a much greater increase 4

when compared to actuals of recent years (roughly one-third higher than 2016 actuals and 5

roughly 50% more than 2017 actuals). 6

7

3.3 Direct Installation 8

9

Direct Installation consists of the Small Business Energy Solutions component. The energy 10

saving target for the 2019 Direct Installation program is a continuation of the targets in the 11

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. While ENS has not achieved this level of savings 12

in recent years (2015 - 2017), as the program continues to evolve, ENS intends to continue 13

increasing energy savings from participating small businesses. This was recently 14

demonstrated in 2017, where savings increased over previous years. 15

16

The Direct Installation unit cost is higher than the average for the approved 2016-2018 17

DSM Resource Plan, to better reflect the results from recent years.3 This increase in unit 18

cost compared to the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan is largely due to program 19

restructuring and resulting incentive changes made in August 2015, as well as updates to, 20

inter alia, runtime estimates further to recent evaluation results. These changes contributed 21

to lower-than-anticipated participation rates, leading to a higher cost per kWh achieved in 22

recent years. While the unit cost for Direct Installation saw significant improvement in 2017 23

(alongside increased participation), ENS expects the 2019 unit cost to remain above the 24

approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan average. 25

3 The average unit cost for Direct Installation in the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan is lower than the actual unit cost

of any of the four recent years (2014-2017).



4. DATA SOURCES 1

2

A variety of data sources were used to develop the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, including the 3

following: 4

• Approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. As the 2019 budget and overall 5

targets are based on the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, the make-up 6

of the associated approved programs was also a significant consideration when 7

developing the 2019 program mix. 8

• Results from recent years. In particular, results from 2016 and 2017 were 9

considered given that these were the most up-to-date assumptions for programs 10

and measures at the time this 2019 DSM Resource Plan was developed. 11

• Independent evaluations for 2008 through 2017, which are subsequently 12

reviewed by the UARB’s Verification Consultant. The purpose of the 13

evaluation is to quantify net incremental energy and peak demand savings. Each 14

year, updates can be made to net-to-gross ratios, savings from individual 15

measures, interactive effects, spillover, market effects, and installation rates. As 16

such, in crafting the 2019 targets and budget, a focus was placed on historical 17

findings from these reports, with a particular emphasis on more recent years. 18

Additional useful information contained in these reports includes participant 19

and trade partner feedback, in addition to Evaluator recommendations. 20

• Market considerations. This applies to both program and measure saturation 21

and transformation. The 2017 Evaluation reports featured a specific section on 22

Market Transformation. In particular, lighting has received a notable amount of 23

attention recently, given the high uptake of LED technologies and the general 24

trend of falling prices. Related to saturation levels, the 2016 ENS residential 25

socket study found that 66 percent of the residential sockets had either CFLs or 26

LEDs. While the remaining number of sockets is still substantial in terms of 27

volume and energy savings potential, ENS also recognizes that at some point 28

incentives may no longer be needed (at a certain point consumers may choose 29

the more efficient option in the absence of rebates). Targets and budgets 30

considered this likelihood, and with a greater desire to diversify the mix of 31



energy savings, targets for programs and program components such as Home 1

Energy Assessment, Green Heat, New Home Construction, and Custom have 2

been increased in relation to the actuals from recent years and/or the approved 3

2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan. ENS also estimates that these programs and 4

program components have low saturation levels, suggesting the potential 5

energy savings are still substantial. Where market studies were not available, 6

EfficiencyOne’s experience and knowledge of general trends was considered 7

when creating the 2019 DSM Resource Plan. 8

9

The 2019 Plan is further informed by EfficiencyOne’s experience and knowledge of 10

industry best practices and research. 11

12

5. COST EFFECTIVENESS 13

14

Since its inception, ENS (and ENSC prior to 2015) has used a full-modelling approach to 15

develop its DSM Plans (with the exception of the 2015 DSM Plan, which was also a 16

continuation plan). These plans relied upon Navigant’s Electricity Resource Assessment 17

Model (ELRAM).4 This full-service DSM planning model is capable of potential 18

assessment, market elasticity and uptake estimates, cost-effectiveness testing, modelling 19

baseline changes and calculating planned program budgets, among other things. This model 20

allows the provision of a full-suite of cost-effectiveness data at the measure, program, and 21

portfolio levels. 22

23

ENS, through careful consideration, has designed the 2019 DSM Plan based on a 24

continuation approach, similar to 2015. This means the 2019 Plan is a continuation of the 25

2016-2018 Plan, which was developed using Navigant’s ELRAM. As such, ENS has 26

demonstrated the relative cost-effectiveness of the 2019 DSM Plan by comparing it to the 27

2016-2018 DSM Plan on which it is based. 28

4 Summit Blue assisted in preparing the 2010 DSM Plan. Summit Blue subsequently became part of Navigant

Consulting Inc.



Understanding the importance of producing a DSM Plan that is cost-effective, ENS has 1

demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of the 2019 DSM Plan in two key ways: 2

• Measure, program and portfolio consistency with the cost-effective approved 3

2016-2018 DSM Plan; and 4

Comparison of the first-year unit costs within the approved 2016-2018 DSM 5

Plan to those within the 2019 DSM Plan. 6

7

5.1 Portfolio Consistency with the Cost-Effective 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan 8

9

EfficiencyOne based the development of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan on a continuation-10

approach. As stated elsewhere in this document, this continuation-approach was 11

necessitated due to changes in legislation that coordinated DSM investment for 2019 with 12

the 2017-2019 Rate Stability Period, as implemented by NS Power. The continuation 13

approach not only altered the development process of the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, but 14

also influenced the program and portfolio design approach. 15

16

In an effort to maintain a similar cost-effectiveness profile as compared to the 2016-2018 17

DSM Resource Plan, large-scale changes to measures, program operation, or portfolio 18

composition have been deferred to, at minimum, the next three-year planning cycle. By 19

maintaining a similar mix of measures within a given program, and the investment and 20

targets of a given program within the broader portfolio, EfficiencyOne intends for the 2019 21

DSM Plan to be a continuation of the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan in all 22

material manners. 23

24

EfficiencyOne’s ongoing research associated with implementing the Incentive Setting 25

Methodology Report is likely to continue to affect incentive levels across the portfolio. 26

These changes would impact Program Administrator Cost test results, but not Total 27

Resource Cost (TRC) test results. Incentives within the TRC test are considered a transfer 28

payment between the utility and customer, and not included.5 29

5 [California] Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Standard Practice Manual, July 2002, at 18.



To illustrate the similarities of portfolio design between the 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan 1

and the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 below illustrate the 2

similarities between the two plans on an energy, demand, and investment basis. 3

4

Table 4 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average Annual Energy Savings to 5

2019 Annual Energy Savings by Program 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Efficient Products

(RES)

Existing Houses New Residential Efficient Products

(BNI)

Custom Incentives Direct Installation

An

nu

al E

ne

rgy

Savi

ngs

(G

Wh

)

Program

2016-2018 Annual

Incremental Energy

Savings (GWh)

2019 Incremental

Energy Savings

(GWh)



Table 5 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average Annual Demand Savings to 1

2019 Annual Demand Savings by Program 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Efficient

Products (RES)

Existing Houses New Residential Efficient

Products (BNI)

Custom

Incentives

Direct

Installation

An

nu

al D

em

and

Sav

ings

(M

W)

Program

2016-2018 Annual

Demand Savings

(MW)

2019 Demand

Savings (MW)



Table 6 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average Annual Investment to 2019 1

Annual Investment by Program 2

3

The similarity of program weighting, with respect to energy savings, demand savings, and 4

investment serves as a preliminary indication of the continued cost-effectiveness of the 5

2019 DSM Plan. 6

7

5.2 First-Year Unit Cost Comparison 8

9

First-year unit costs are an important management tool for ENS, and are one of several 10

metrics used on a day-to-day basis to track and measure program performance. First-year 11

unit costs represent the program administrator investment required to generate a unit of 12

resource savings, which may be annual energy savings or system coincident peak demand 13

savings. 14

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Efficient Products

(RES)


(BNI)


An

nu

al I

nve

stm

en

t ($

M)

Program

2016-2018 Annual

Investment ($M)

2019 Investment ($M)



While first-year unit costs do not correlate to cost-effectiveness in an abstract comparison 1

of DSM programs,6 they do correlate well as a proxy to cost-effectiveness results when 2

comparing programs that offer similar groups of measures, and similar avoided costs of 3

capacity and energy. 4

5

Table 7 and Table 8 below offer comparisons between the first-year program unit costs of 6

the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan, and the 2019 DSM Resource Plan, for energy 7

and system coincident peak demand, respectively. 8

9

Table 7 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average First-Year Energy Unit Cost 10

to 2019 First-Year Energy Unit Cost by Program and Portfolio 11

6 This can be attributed to the fact that first-year unit costs do not consider the lifetime of a measure, or the weighted-

average measure life of a group of measures, a program, or a portfolio.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Efficient Products

(RES)


(BNI)


Firs

t Y

ear

En

erg

y U

nit

Co

st (

$/k

Wh

)

Program

2016-2018 First Year

Energy Unit Cost ($/kWh)

2019 First Year Energy

Unit Cost ($/kWh)



Table 8 - Comparison of Approved 2016-2018 Average First-Year Demand Unit Cost 1

to 2019 First-Year Demand Unit Cost by Program and Portfolio 2

3

Table 9 provides the relative changes in first-year unit costs by program, as compared to 4

approved 2016-18 DSM Resource Plan averages. 5

6

Table 9 - Relative Change in First-Year Unit Costs from Approved 2016-2018 DSM 7

Resource Plan to 2019 DSM Resource Plan 8

9

The most notable differences in first-year unit costs occur for the New Residential and 10

Direct Installation programs. For New Residential, this is largely precipitated by a redesign 11

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Efficient Products

(RES)


(BNI)


De

man

d U

nit

Co

st (

$/W

)

Program

2016-2018 Demand Unit

Cost ($/W)

2019 Demand Unit Cost

($/W)

Program

Relative Change in

First-Year Energy

Unit Costs (%)

Relative Change in

First-Year Demand

Unit Costs (%)

Efficient Products (Residential) -11% -22%

Existing Houses 11% -10%

New Residential 25% 21%

Efficient Products (BNI) -9% -6%

Custom Incentives -9% 12%

Direct Installation 21% 1%



to its incentive structure, with rationale for changes provided in section 2.3, above. For 1

Direct Installation, this is largely due to program restructuring and resulting incentive 2

changes, as well as updates to, inter alia, runtime estimates resulting from recent evaluation 3

results. Further information is provided in section 3.3, above. As the relative level of 4

incentive spending does not impact the TRC test, these incentive-related effects are not 5

expected to drive changes to the TRC test results relative to 2016-2018, for which both of 6

these programs screened positively. 7

8

5.3 Cost-Effectiveness Summary 9

10

ENS submits that the 2019 DSM Resource Plan is cost-effective, based on the following 11

key points: 12

• The approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource Plan was cost-effective by a wide 13

margin. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 program years all passed the TRC test at the 14

program level and have TRC test results of 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 at the portfolio level; 15

• The 2019 DSM Resource Plan has a very similar mix of measures and a similar 16

program structure when compared to the approved 2016-2018 DSM Resource 17

Plan; and 18

• The proposed DSM Resource Plan has comparable first-year energy and demand 19

unit costs at the portfolio level, and limited changes at the program level. 20

21

6. ENABLING STRATEGIES 22

23

Enabling Strategies are essential for the effective delivery of DSM programs. Continuing 24

to promote a culture of energy efficiency in Nova Scotia will help drive program uptake 25

and contribute to market transformation. As with the 2019 DSM program mix, the proposed 26

2019 Enabling Strategies budget was developed in relation to the approved 2016-2018 Plan 27

and spending from recent years. In 2019, the Enabling Strategies budget will make up 13.2 28

percent of the overall DSM Resource Plan budget, which is higher than the 9.5 percent in 29

2017, 9.7 percent in 2016, and the filed 2016-2018 average of 9.0 percent. There are two 30

primary reasons for this increase. First, $1.0 million is allocated to Enabling Strategies for 31



demand-focused activities. Second, additional budget is required for the regulatory process 1

associated with the 2020-2022 DSM Plan. 2

3

7. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 4

5

One method EfficiencyOne uses to meet targets within budget is to have a company-wide 6

focus on results. Through its performance management balanced scorecard approach, 7

EfficiencyOne ties its DSM objectives directly to each employee. This helps ensure that all 8

employees understand how their responsibilities affect the company’s mandated objectives. 9

10

This approach has helped contribute to EfficiencyOne’s performance to-date, which 11

includes not only meeting targets within budget, but also high (and sustained) levels of 12

Customer Satisfaction (89% in 2016) and high employee engagement scores (91% in 2016). 13

Recently, EfficiencyOne has also been named as one of Canada’s Greenest Employers for 14

2017.7 EfficiencyOne’s success also led to receiving two ENERGY STAR® Advocate of 15

the Year awards from Natural Resources Canada (in 2013 and 2016).8 Furthermore, the 16

International Energy Agency also noted EfficiencyOne’s innovative approaches to 17

achieving energy savings in their 2015 Energy Efficiency Market Report.9 Finally, 18

recognition of Canada’s first energy efficiency utility (ENS) was also included in the 19

Federal Government’s 2016 Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate 20

Change.10 21

7 “2017 Winners” Canada’s Top 100 Environmental, online: Canada’s Top 100

<http://www.canadastop100.com/environmental/>. 8 Natural Resources Canada, “Winners’ profiles – 2016” online: NRCan <http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/for-

participants/awards/18610> and Natural Resources Canada, “Previous winners 2014 to 2013” online: NRCan

<https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/for-participants/awards/13559>. 9 International Energy Agency, Energy Efficiency Market Report 2015 – Market Trends and Medium Term Prospects

(Paris: IEA, 2015) at 109. 10 Government of Canada, Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change – Canada’s Plan to

Address Climate Change and Grow the Economy, 2016 at 14 and 64.

http://www.canadastop100.com/environmental/

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/for-participants/awards/18610

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/products/for-participants/awards/18610



8. CONCLUSION 1

2

ENS’s 2019 DSM activities are based on a continuation of the approved 2016-2018 DSM 3

Resource Plan. The budget for 2019 is identical to the average annual budget in the 2016-4

2018 Plan. This is consistent with the approach taken in the Electricity Plan Implementation 5

(2015) Act with respect to the 2019 DSM investment amount. Energy saving and peak 6

demand targets for 2019 are lower than the annual average in the 2016-2018 Plan. Similar 7

to the 2015 continuation year, the 2019 DSM Resource Plan did not use a resource 8

modelling approach as the 2019 program mix is based on the 2016-2018 DSM Resource 9

Plan, for which resource modelling was conducted. Instead, the 2019 DSM Resource Plan 10

uses a combination of, inter alia, extending an already approved DSM Resource Plan, 11

updating cost-effectiveness insights via unit cost analyses, and adapting the Plan where 12

necessary based on EfficiencyOne’s experience delivering cost-effective energy and 13

demand savings. 14

Appendix C

Forward-looking Rate and Bill Impact Analysis

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix C

DATE FILED: April 6, 2018 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................4

2. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................6

2.1 Scenarios ........................................................................................................................6

2.2 Customer Classes ...........................................................................................................6

2.3 Time Period definitions..................................................................................................7

2.4 Programs ........................................................................................................................7

2.5 Calculating Rate Impacts ...............................................................................................8

2.6 Calculating Bill Impacts ..............................................................................................10

2.7 Calculating Participation Impacts ................................................................................11

3. 2019 ANALYSIS RESULTS .................................................................................................12

3.1 Overall Rate Impacts....................................................................................................12

3.2 Overall Bill Impacts .....................................................................................................14

3.3 Overall Participation Impacts ......................................................................................14

3.4 Results by Rate Class ...................................................................................................18

3.4.1 Residential..............................................................................................................18

3.4.2 Small General.........................................................................................................18

3.4.3 General ...................................................................................................................19

3.4.4 Large General.........................................................................................................19

3.4.5 Small Industrial ......................................................................................................20

3.4.6 Medium Industrial ..................................................................................................21

3.4.7 Large Industrial ......................................................................................................21

3.4.8 Municipal ...............................................................................................................22

4. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................23


DATE FILED: April 6, 2018 ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Average Rate Impact compared to No-New-DSM Scenario, 2017 Historical

to 2019 Forecast Results Comparison .......................................................................... 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Average Bill Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 ..................... 2

Figure 2: Average Rate Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 .................... 3

Figure 3: Rate Impacts as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 (using levelized avoided

costs) ............................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 4: Average Bill Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 ................... 14

Figure 5: Cumulative Participation Rates by Rate Class (tracked only) ...................................... 15

Figure 6: Cumulative Participation Rates by Rate Class (tracked and estimated) ....................... 16

Figure 7: Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class (tracked only) ............................................. 16

Figure 8: Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class (tracked and estimated) .............................. 17

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: 2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Results by Rate Class

Attachment 2: 2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Assumptions

Attachment 3: 2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Equations



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2

Efficiency Nova Scotia’s 2019 DSM Resource Plan rate and bill impact analysis provides 3

a broad trend-based picture of the rate and bill impacts of proposed Demand-Side 4

Management (DSM) activities to be carried out in 2019, looking forward until 2032, when 5

the modelled impacts of 2019 measures expire. The analysis compares differences between 6

two scenarios – a no-new-DSM scenario that does not include 2019 DSM or any rate and 7

bill impacts arising from it, and a DSM scenario that allocates program expenditures, 8

avoided costs, and recovery of lost revenues arising from 2019 DSM to each participating 9

rate class, excluding Unmetered. The analysis examines DSM effects in isolation of utility 10

effects such as the specific timing of infrastructure upgrades or general rate applications, 11

or the creation of rate stability periods. Using a levelized cost approach, the analysis 12

provides insight into the average effect of DSM on rates and bills over the long term, as 13

opposed to an attempt to forecast future annual NS Power rates. 14

15

Figure 1 shows the forecast average electricity bill impacts for participants and non-16

participants. Variations in average participant savings between classes are driven by the 17

ability of a typical energy efficiency project to impact a customer’s total bill – generally, 18

participants in smaller classes achieve deeper savings per project relative to their total 19

consumption, while participants in larger classes achieve less deep savings per-project, but 20

are able to participate more frequently. 21



Figure 1: Average Bill Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

The general modelling approach is the same as was used for the forward-looking 2016-12

2018 DSM Resource Plan analysis (isolation of effects arising from proposed DSM only), 13

however, the model itself has evolved over that timeframe with input from the DSM 14

Advisory Group; in its current form, the model is structurally identical to the version that 15

EfficiencyOne used for its 2017 historical analysis. 16

17

The results show that the projected impacts of the proposed 2019 DSM Plan are in line 18

with nominal impacts from previously approved DSM from 2011-2018. In every rate class, 19

over the life of DSM measures (2019-2032), average rate impacts are roughly +0.35% to 20

+0.55% of the no-new-DSM scenario (see Figure 2). Over this period, DSM delivered in 21

2019 will offset over 2 TWh of energy production and produce over 20 MW of system-22

peak demand reductions, reducing average participant bills by up to 4.5%, while producing 23

minimal bill impacts for non-participants. The dominant short-term rate impact results 24

from the recovery of DSM program costs, and will not result in a rate increase as these 25

recovery amounts are included as part of NS Power’s rate stabilization period. 26

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

Residential Small General General Large General Small

Industrial

Medium

Industrial

Large

Industrial

Municipal

Average Bill Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019

Average Participants Average Non-Participants



Figure 2: Average Rate Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 1

2

In evaluation of total DSM impacts, it is important to also consider benefits that do not 3

directly impact rates or bills, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This 4

investment will avoid the release of approximately 850,000 tonnes of CO2e over 2019-5

2032, roughly equivalent to the annual emissions from the Tufts Cove generating station. 6

7

Other benefits include the reduction of energy poverty, investment in local businesses that 8

deliver efficiency services, reduced reliance on foreign fuel supplies, increased 9

productivity in businesses, increased occupant comfort in homes and businesses, and 10

increased room in operating budgets of public agencies, among others. 11

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%


Industrial

Medium

Industrial

Large

Industrial

Municipal

Average Rate Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019



1. INTRODUCTION 1

2

This analysis provides a high-level estimate of the impact of Demand-Side Management 3

(DSM) activities proposed within EfficiencyOne’s 2019 DSM Resource Plan on customer 4

rates and bills, within each participating rate class, excluding Unmetered. The current 5

analysis estimates impacts from 2019 to 2032, based on proposed DSM program delivery 6

in 2019. 7

8

The rate and bill impact analysis (RBIA) considers that some customers participate in DSM 9

programs, reducing their energy use and lowering their energy bill, and that all customers 10

experience rate impacts associated with DSM investment. This analysis forecasts these 11

impacts so they can be assessed by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (“Board”) 12

and stakeholders, and considered in decisions on DSM investment. It also provides an 13

avenue to examine historical participation rates, which are a key indicator of the degree to 14

which EfficiencyOne has operated programs that were available to all customers, and 15

informs EfficiencyOne about the participation impacts that result from changes in program 16

delivery. 17

18

In normal planning cycles, when proposing a 3-year DSM Resource Plan, EfficiencyOne 19

will examine alternate scenarios of DSM investment; the current analysis examines a single 20

scenario of DSM investment, in line with the 2019 Plan continuation approach. However, 21

the output graphs also include historical participation figures for reference (with actual 22

results for 2011-2016 and estimates for 2017 and 2018). 23

24

The RBIA model, initially filed on November 14, 2013 along with a detailed methodology 25

report, is designed to show the average, long-term effect of DSM on rates and bills. The 26

model was developed by ENS Corporation and Elenchus Research Associates and built on 27

a sample framework provided by the Board’s consultant on this matter, Synapse Energy 28

Economics. Prior to the 2013 filing, it was reviewed several times by Synapse and 29

subsequently revised to ensure it served its required purposes. It has been revised several 30

times since then, based on feedback from past filings and discussions with the DSM 31



Advisory Group (DSMAG). The model structure used for the current analysis is identical 1

to the version used in EfficiencyOne’s 2017 RBIA, filed on 31 October 2017; any potential 2

changes resulting from stakeholder comments on the 2017 RBIA will be addressed through 3

2018 as EfficiencyOne prepares for its historical 2018 analysis. 4

5

Section 2 provides an overview of the model framework and discusses key assumptions. 6

Results are discussed in Section 3, with overall trends followed by individual rate class 7

impacts. Concluding remarks are made in Section 4. Attachment 1 provides outputs from 8

the model for each rate class analyzed. A list of assumptions and their derivations are also 9

included as Attachment 2. Attachment 3 includes a list of equations to describe the lost 10

revenue and avoided cost calculations. The model, a Microsoft Excel file, has been 11

included in the electronic version of this filing. 12



2. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 1

2

This section describes the overall modelling approach and key assumptions. 3

4

2.1 Scenarios 5

6

The model compares two scenarios: a DSM scenario and a no-new-DSM scenario. The 7

DSM scenario includes the utility system costs and benefits of proposed DSM programs 8

for 2019. The no-new-DSM scenario does not include any DSM costs or benefits for 2019. 9

Both scenarios include the load impacts and residual rate impacts of DSM programs 10

operated from 2011-2018, and neither includes any DSM beyond 2019. Only the 11

differences between the scenarios are presented, isolating the lifetime effects of 2019 DSM. 12

13

2.2 Customer Classes 14

15

The model presents results, by rate class, for the following NS Power customer classes: 16

• Residential (rate codes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 16) 17

• Small General (rate code 10) 18

• General (rate code 11) 19

• Large General (rate code 12) 20

• Small Industrial (rate code 21) 21

• Medium Industrial (rate code 22) 22

• Large Industrial (rate codes 23 and 25, and customers under the ‘One part high 23

voltage real time pricing’ tariff) 24

• Municipal (rate code 24) 25

26

The six municipal electric utilities (MEUs) are treated as the only six customers in the 27

Municipal rate class, and each MEU is considered to be a participant in ENS programs 28

when any customer within their distribution system participates in an ENS program. 29

Participation of individual customers connected to MEU distribution systems is not 30

modelled. 31



2.3 Time Period definitions 1

2

In this analysis, 3

• The DSM delivery period is the timeframe over which DSM programs are delivered. 4

In this analysis, the DSM delivery period is 2019. 5

• The cost recovery period is the timeframe over which DSM program costs are 6

recovered. Program costs for 2019 are assumed to be completely recovered within 7

2019. 8

• The avoided costs period is the timeframe over which the benefits of DSM are realized. 9

In this analysis, measures installed in 2019 have an average measure life of 10

approximately 13 years at the portfolio level, so the avoided costs period is 2019-2031. 11

• The lost revenues period is the timeframe over which DSM affects the revenues 12

collected by NS Power, relative to the no-new-DSM scenario. Weighted-average 13

measure lives are averaged at the portfolio level for the calculation of lost avoided 14

costs, but are averaged at the class level for calculation of lost revenues (this difference 15

in modelling is due to the fundamental construction of the model, as a small amount of 16

savings occur outside of the modelled classes but still contribute to avoided costs). In 17

this analysis, measures installed in 2019 for the Residential class have an average 18

measure life of approximately 14 years (the longest of all classes), so the lost revenues 19

period is 2019-2032. 20

• The study period is the timeframe over which impacts are analyzed and presented, and 21

by which average impacts are calculated. In this analysis, the study period is 2019-22

2032. 23

24

2.4 Programs 25

Since the entire portfolio of programs impacts future rates and bills, the analysis includes 26

all ENS programs that are funded by NS Power and recovered from electricity system 27

ratepayers, and provided within the DSM delivery period. 28



2.5 Calculating Rate Impacts 1

2

No-new-DSM scenario rates 3

For 2019, the forecasted rates as part of the rate stability period are used as the no-new-4

DSM rates, since they are ‘locked in’ and will be active whether or not any incremental 5

DSM is pursued in 2019. The calculated incremental rate impacts therefore estimate the 6

approximate portion of rates attributable to DSM1. After 2019, energy and demand rates 7

are assumed to escalate at 2.7% per year, consistent with the assumption used for 8

evaluation of DSM impacts in the 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). 9

10

For rate classes with more than one energy block price, NS Power has provided estimates 11

of the annual class consumption in each block over the 2011-2019 period. Beyond 2019, 12

the ratio of block 1 energy consumption to total energy consumption is assumed to remain 13

constant. The individual block rates are used to calculate the total class revenue from 14

energy sales (block 1, block 2, and FAM charges), which is then redistributed amongst the 15

total kWh sales for the class, producing a single average energy rate for each class that 16

accounts for block 1, block 2, and FAM charges. 17

18

DSM scenario rates 19

The DSM rates are calculated by taking the average no-new-DSM rates, adding a program 20

cost recovery component (upward rate pressure), adding a lost revenue component (upward 21

rate pressure), and subtracting an avoided costs component (downward rate pressure), for 22

each year of the study period. Two key assumptions are that a) all lost revenues must be 23

recovered (including lost energy revenues) and b) all avoided costs do not need to be 24

recovered (including avoided energy costs). Together, these two assumptions model the 25

reallocation of ‘lost’ fixed costs from unbilled sales into an upward rate pressure. 26

1 An alternative approach would have been to estimate the amount of DSM cost recovery in 2019 rates for each class

and remove it, producing a set of theoretical 2019 rates that truly included no DSM cost recovery. Since the main

output of this rate analysis is the approximate percentage rate impact attributable to DSM, not a forecast of precise

future rates, EfficiencyOne opted for a simpler approach that relies on actual 2019 rates. The approach EfficiencyOne

used is conservative, as it would tend to overestimate the lost revenues.



The model does not forecast the timing of general rate applications, or the occurrence of 1

any future rate adjustments. In this way, the DSM effects are isolated from all other utility 2

effects impacting rates, and the rate effects presented here should be interpreted as the 3

annual ‘rate pressure’ from DSM. 4

5

Program cost recovery component 6

Expenditures for the 2019 Plan were allocated to rate classes, and are assumed to be fully 7

recovered within 2019. These costs are converted to a $/kWh program cost recovery 8

component by dividing costs by forecast annual kWh sales within each rate class. 9

10

Avoided costs 11

This analysis uses levelized avoided costs in four categories: generation capacity ($/MW), 12

transmission capacity ($/MW), distribution capacity ($/MW) and avoided energy 13

($/MWh). These avoided cost rates are respectively multiplied by peak demand or energy 14

savings for the entire system, for each year of the avoided costs period. 15

16

Lost revenue recovery component 17

Lost NS Power revenues are calculated at the rate class level by multiplying DSM energy 18

and demand savings by no-new-DSM rates, and are then summed to the portfolio level. 19

This determines the difference in revenue collection between the DSM and no-new-DSM 20

scenarios. 21

22

Lost revenue from peak demand reductions 23

EfficiencyOne estimates annual system peak coincident demand savings, not demand 24

savings coincident with monthly customer peaks. For this reason, a conversion factor is 25

necessary to calculate lost NS Power revenues from customer demand reductions. In 2017, 26

NS Power provided ratios of coincident demand contributions to total billed demand for 27

each rate class. Because there is no direct way to correlate peak demand savings with billed 28

demand savings, EfficiencyOne has employed the assumption that, for each rate class, the 29

ratio between annual system coincident peak demand contribution and total billed demand 30



is the same as the ratio between annual system coincident peak demand savings and billed 1

demand savings (i.e. the ratio for savings is assumed to be the same as the ratio for load). 2

3

Allocation of avoided costs and lost NS Power revenues to rate classes 4

The annual avoided costs and lost revenues are summed to the portfolio level and then 5

reallocated back to rate classes based on their share of the total revenue requirement. For 6

rate classes without demand charges, each is divided by kWh sales within the class to form 7

a $/kWh component of energy rates. For rate classes with demand rates, it is assumed that 8

energy and demand rates in the DSM scenario change by the same percentage, and so 9

avoided costs and lost revenues are allocated to both a $/kWh energy component and a 10

$/kW demand component. 11

12

Transformer credits 13

In some classes, customers who own their own distribution transformer receive a credit on 14

the rates they pay. Since only a portion of customers receive this credit, it is not included 15

in rates used in the model. 16

17

2.6 Calculating Bill Impacts 18

19

Non-participant consumption 20

In the no-new-DSM scenario, for each rate class, in each year, the estimate of total class 21

energy consumption is divided by the number of customers to produce an estimate of the 22

average customer’s consumption. In the DSM scenario, non-participants in DSM programs 23

are assumed to use the same amount of energy as they do in the no-new-DSM scenario. 24

25

Participant consumption 26

For the DSM scenario, within each rate class, in each year, total annual savings (including 27

current-year savings and persistent savings from past years) are divided equally amongst 28

the number of cumulative participants. The model does not estimate impacts for multiple 29

‘depths of participation’ – all participants are assumed to save the same amount of energy 30



and demand. In reality, some participants would save much more, and others would save 1

much less. 2

3

Total customer consumption 4

The output graphs include a third category of participants, called Total Customers. This is 5

determined by allocating DSM savings for the class equally among all customers, including 6

non-participants. It provides an estimate of bills in what may be considered a hypothetical 7

ideal scenario from a customer equity perspective, where all customers use the same 8

amount of energy and achieve the same level of savings, as well as providing an overall 9

view of rate class effects. 10

11

2.7 Calculating Participation Impacts 12

13

For historical-looking RBIAs, EfficiencyOne combines participant records (for programs 14

that track participant information) with participant records from previous years. In this 15

way, EfficiencyOne can identify the first year that a customer participated in a program, so 16

that they are only counted once as a unique participant, and cumulative participation rates 17

can be determined. For the presentation of annual participation figures, customers are 18

counted once in each year they participate. 19

20

For the current analysis, which looks only at DSM delivered in 2019, EfficiencyOne has 21

estimated participation figures based on actual participation records from 2016 (the most 22

recent year for which EfficiencyOne has integrated participant records with previous 23

years). Each 2016 participant figure (one for each program within each rate class) was 24

multiplied by the ratio of expected 2019 to actual 2016 energy savings to produce 25

participation estimates for 2019. This approach is reasonable since the proposed 2019 26

measure mix for each program, within each class, is not significantly different than in 2016. 27

28

For illustrative purposes, participation graphs provided in Attachment 1 include historical 29

participation in 2011-2018 DSM programs. These participation figures are identical to 30

those used in EfficiencyOne’s historical 2017 RBIA. 31



3. 2019 ANALYSIS RESULTS 1

2

Summary sheets for rate, bill, and participation impacts for each applicable rate class are 3

included in Attachment 1. The graphs presented on the summary sheets have been selected 4

based on representative outputs from the model. 5

6

It is important to note that the analysis relies on the use of levelized avoided costs, as the 7

intent is to model the average, long-term effect of DSM on rates and bills. As such, greater 8

confidence should be placed in average, long-term results than results for any specific year. 9

10

3.1 Overall Rate Impacts 11

12

The general trend in rates, visible in all classes, is that the avoided costs (downward rate 13

pressure) and lost revenues (upward rate pressure) resulting from 2019 programs are 14

approximately in balance throughout the life of DSM measures. In 2019, there is a net 15

upward pressure on rates due to recovery of program costs in that year; note that the 16

necessary cost recovery amount is already accounted for within 2019 rates. The net result 17

for most classes, when averaged over the study period, is that rates are slightly higher 18

(0.35% to 0.55%) with DSM that without. Note that the analysis does not consider the 19

current (2017-2019) rate stabilization period or the level of DSM cost recovery already 20

embedded in rates through that period; instead it adds the calculated annual DSM rate 21

impacts on top of no-new-DSM rates and examines the resulting difference between the 22

two. 23

24

Figure 3 illustrates the annual rate effects. This pattern illustrates the annual program cost 25

recovery and lost revenue recovery amounts, but the avoided costs impact is smoothed by 26

the use of levelized avoided costs. Table 1 presents the average rate impacts over the study 27

period, compared to the results of the historical 2017 RBIA. When comparing results, note 28

that both the DSM delivery periods and study periods differ between these two analyses: 29

the 2017 RBIA included DSM from 2011-2018 with impacts averaged over 2011-2033, 30

including deferral and amortization of 2015 DSM costs, while the current analysis includes 31



only DSM in 2019 with impacts averaged between 2019-2032. Forecasted rate impacts in 1

all classes attributable to the 2019 DSM Plan are less than a tenth of a cent when averaged 2

over the duration of installed measures (i.e. the study period). 3

4

Figure 3: Rate Impacts as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 (using levelized avoided 5

costs) 6

7

Table 1: Average Rate Impact compared to No-New-DSM Scenario, 2017 Historical 8

to 2019 Forecast Results Comparison 9

2017 Historical RBIA Result

(Average Impact over 2011-2033)

2019 Plan RBIA Result

(Average Impact over 2019-2032)

Rate Class (cents/kWh) (%) (cents/kWh) (%)

Residential +0.031 +0.27% +0.061 +0.35%

Small General +0.116 +0.92% +0.081 +0.48%

General +0.057 +0.62% +0.054 +0.46%

Large General +0.044 +0.60% +0.044 +0.42%

Small Industrial +0.053 +0.62% +0.061 +0.55%

Medium Industrial +0.013 +0.21% +0.032 +0.37%

Large Industrial -0.004 -0.03% +0.037 +0.40%

Municipal -0.004 -0.03% +0.037 +0.39%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly R

ate

Im

pac

ts (

%)

Rate Impacts as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019

Residential

Small General

General

Large General

Small Industrial

Medium Industrial

Large Industrial

Municipal



3.2 Overall Bill Impacts 1

2

The analysis shows that between 2019 and 2032, participants in 2019 ENS programs will 3

see average bill reductions (by class) of up to 4.5% (Residential). The average bill increase 4

for non-participants (for each rate class) over this period is less than 0.5% of the no-new-5

DSM scenario. Average bill impacts for participants, non-participants and total customers 6

are presented in Figure 4. Variations in average participant savings between classes are 7

driven by the ability of a typical energy efficiency project to impact a customer’s total bill 8

– generally, participants in smaller classes achieve deeper savings per project relative to 9

their total consumption, while participants in larger classes achieve less deep savings per-10

project, but are able to participate more frequently. 11

12

Figure 4: Average Bill Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019 13

14

3.3 Overall Participation Impacts 15

16

Participation figures are presented here to illustrate that the 2019 Plan reflects a 17

continuation of activities from recent years. Figures 5 through 8 present actual 18

participation for 2011-2016 and estimates for 2017 and 2018, all of which was included in 19

EfficiencyOne’s 2017 RBIA, updated with estimates for 2019. 20

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%


Industrial

Medium

Industrial

Large

Industrial

Municipal

Average Bill Impact (2019-2032) as a Result of DSM Activities in 2019

Average Participants Total Customers Non-Participants



Two types of participation figures are presented – tracked and estimated. Tracked 1

participants are those for which EfficiencyOne has had direct contact with the customer, 2

and collected personally identifying information such as address and NS Power account 3

number. Estimated participants are those for which EfficiencyOne had not collected such 4

identifying information. For years with actual results (2011-2016), participant numbers 5

are estimated for point-of-sale programs. For forecast years (2017-2019), all participants 6

are shown as estimated. Cumulative participation is presented in Figure 5 (tracked 7

participants only) and Figure 6 (tracked and estimated participants), including estimates of 8

participation for 2017-2019. EfficiencyOne employs the assumption that all customers in 9

the Large General, Medium Industrial, Large Industrial and Municipal classes participate 10

in BER-IR each year, so these classes show 100% participation in Figure 6 for all years. 11

The other, smaller-customer-consumption classes show that cumulative participation rates 12

have been steadily climbing since 2011. Figures 7 and 8 present annual participation 13

impacts. 14

15

Figure 5: Cumulative Participation Rates by Rate Class2 (tracked only) 16

2 All 2017-2019 participation is shown as “estimated” rather than “tracked”, causing the cumulative participation to

flatten in those years. Any changes over 2017-2019 in this figure are due to projected changes in the number of

customers in the class.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative Participation Rates by Rate Class(tracked only)

Residential

Small General

General

Large General

Small Industrial

Medium Industrial

Large Industrial

Municipal



Figure 6: Cumulative Participation Rates by Rate Class3 (tracked and estimated) 1

2

Figure 7: Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class4 (tracked only) 3

3 The Large General, Medium Industrial, Large Industrial and Municipal classes have 100% participation in each year. 4 2017-2019 participation is included as “estimated” rather than “tracked” and so is not present in this figure.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative Participation Rates by Rate Class(tracked and estimated)

Residential

Small General

General

Large General

Small Industrial

Medium Industrial

Large Industrial

Municipal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class(tracked only)

Residential

Small General

General

Large General

Small Industrial

Medium Industrial

Large Industrial

Municipal



Figure 8: Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class5 (tracked and estimated) 1

5 The Large General, Medium Industrial, Large Industrial and Municipal classes have 100% participation in each year.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Participation Rates by Rate Class(tracked and estimated)

Residential

Small General

General

Large General

Small Industrial

Medium Industrial

Large Industrial

Municipal



3.4 Results by Rate Class 1

2

This section highlights important results in more detail, by individual rate class. 3

4

3.4.1 Residential 5

• As modeled, the Residential class includes 6

Rate Codes 2, 3, 6, 9 and 16 (Domestic), as 7

well as 4 and 5 (Charitable). 8

• Participants in the Residential class see an 9

average bill decrease of 4.5% over the study 10

period. 11

• Non-Participants see an average bill increase of 0.3% over the study period. 12

• The average rate impact over the study period is an increase of 0.3%, or 0.061 13

cents/kWh. 14

• Energy Savings Actions (the Home Energy Report) began in 2013. In 2014 and 15

2015, the pilot program continued with the same group of participants, so no new 16

participants were counted. Roughly 7% of HER participants left the program in 17

2014 and another 7% in 2015, which is reflected in the annual participant counts. 18

The forecasted 2017 drop in annual participation is reflective of the discontinuation 19

of the HER program in 2016. 20

21

3.4.2 Small General 22

• As modeled, the Small General class 23

includes Rate Code 10 only. 24

• Participants in the Small General class see 25

an average bill decrease of 3.1% over the 26

study period. 27



cents/kWh. 30

Residential

0.3% Rates

4.5% Participant bills

Small General

0.5% Rates




• Very high 2011 participation in Efficient Products (Residential) is due to the fact 1

that ENS’s Commercial Direct Install program was categorized as Efficient 2

Products (Residential) in this year only. In 2012 it was re-categorized under Small 3

Business Direct Install. The participation rates expressed as percentages are 4

percentages of eligible participants, where the proportion of the Small General class 5

deemed eligible is only 10% for Efficient Products (Residential), but 100% for 6

Small Business Direct Install. This explains why, when the participation rate is 7

expressed as a fraction of eligible customers in the Small General class, the re-8

categorization of Commercial Direct Install produces a much lower incremental 9

participation rate impact under the Small Business Direct Install program than it 10

had under the Efficient Products (Residential) program. 11

12

3.4.3 General 13

• As modeled, the General class includes Rate 14

Code 11 only. 15

• Participants in the General class see an 16


period. 18



cents/kWh. 21

• In this rate class, cumulative participation reaches the rate class maximum of 100% 22

participation in 2014. For this reason, the bill effects for the participant group reflect 23

the bill effects for total customers after this point. The non-participant line is still 24

shown, even though no non-participants may exist in the rate class. This non-25

participant line is useful when considering a participant with very little energy and 26

demand savings (e.g., small point-of-sale purchase only). 27

28

3.4.4 Large General 29

• As modeled, the Large General class includes Rate Code 12 only. 30

General

0.5% Rates




• Participants in the Large General class see an 1


period. 3

• Non-Participants see an average bill increase 4

of 0.4% over the study period. 5


cents/kWh. 7



the bill effects for total customers. The non-participant line is still shown, even 10

though no non-participants may exist in the rate class. This non-participant line is 11

useful when considering a participant with very little energy and demand savings 12

(e.g., small point-of-sale purchase only). 13

• The Large General class primarily participates in the Efficient Product Rebates 14

(BNI) and Custom Incentives programs. All other annual program participation 15

rates appear erratic due to the very low percentage of customers deemed eligible 16

for those programs and the small number of customers in the class. 17

18

3.4.5 Small Industrial 19

• As modeled, the Small Industrial class 20


• Participants in the Small Industrial class see 22

an average bill decrease of 2.5% over the 23

study period. 24



cents/kWh. 27

• Very high 2011 participation in Efficient Products (Residential) is due to the fact 28

that ENS’s Commercial Direct Install program was categorized as Efficient 29

Products (Residential) in this year only. In 2012 it was re-categorized under Small 30

Small Industrial

0.6% Rates


Large General

0.4% Rates




Business Direct Install. The participation rates expressed as percentages are 1

percentages of eligible participants, where the proportion of the Small Industrial 2

class deemed eligible is only 1% for Efficient Products (Residential), but 100% for 3

Small Business Direct Install. This explains why, when the participation rate is 4

expressed as a fraction of eligible customers in the Small Industrial class, the re-5

categorization of Commercial Direct Install produces a much lower incremental 6

participation rate impact under the Small Business Direct Install program than it 7

had under the Efficient Products (Residential) program. 8

9

3.4.6 Medium Industrial 10

• As modeled, the Medium Industrial class 11


• Participants in the Medium Industrial class see 13

an average bill decrease of 0.4% over the study 14

period. 15



cents/kWh. 18







25

3.4.7 Large Industrial 26

• As modeled, the Large Industrial class 27

includes Rate Code 23 (Large Industrial), 28

Rate Code 25 (Large Industrial, interruptible 29

service), and the one-part high voltage real 30

time pricing tariff. 31

Medium Industrial

0.4% Rates


Large Industrial

0.4% Rates




• Participants in the Large Industrial class see an average bill decrease of 0.2% over 1

the study period. 2



cents/kWh. 5







12

3.4.8 Municipal 13

• As modeled, the Municipal class includes 14

Rate Code 24 only. 15

• Municipal utilities see an average bill decrease 16

of 1.1% over the study period. 17

• The average rate impact over the study period 18

is an increase of 0.4%, or 0.037 cents/kWh. 19

• Since there was participation in ENS programs from all six Municipal Electric 20

Utilities in each year of the DSM delivery period, the bill impacts for participants 21

match those for total customers exactly. This is a simplification of the rate and bill 22

effects for individual MEU customers, as their individual participation is not 23

modelled in the analysis. 24

Municipal

0.4% Rates




4. CONCLUSION 1

2

This analysis captures the impacts of proposed 2019 DSM programs to customer rates and 3

bills throughout the full lifetime of the DSM impacts. The analysis does not predict actual 4

annual rates or bills in any year, as these are also impacted by the timing of capacity 5

upgrades, base cost of fuel reset processes, creation of rate stability periods and general 6

rate applications. The impacts have been calculated as the incremental effect of 2019 DSM 7

programs, additional to all 2011-2018 DSM and irrespective of any DSM pursued in 2020 8

or beyond. 9

10

The results show that the projected impacts of the proposed 2019 DSM Plan are in line 11

with nominal impacts from previously approved DSM from 2011-2018. The dominant 12

short-term rate impact results from the recovery of DSM program costs, and will not result 13

in a rate increase as these recovery amounts are included as part of NS Power’s rate 14

stabilization period. 15

16

In evaluation of total DSM impacts, it is important to also consider benefits that do not 17

directly impact rates or bills, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, reduction 18

of energy poverty, investment in local businesses that deliver efficiency services, reduced 19

reliance on foreign fuel supplies, increased productivity in businesses, increased occupant 20

comfort in homes and businesses, and increased room in operating budgets of public 21

agencies, among others. 22

23

EfficiencyOne will continue to work with the DSMAG to adapt its model to produce the 24

most useful results and welcomes feedback on the model structure and assumptions. 25

Appendix C - Attachment 1

2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Results by Rate Class

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING - Appendix C

Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 17,060,557 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712

6470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

7114,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Cumulative Number of New Participants

Cumulative Cost per kWh Saved

Annual Average Savings per Participant (Cumulative)

Annual Number of Participants

Annual Average Savings per Participant (Current Year)

Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Residential Class

Impacts of DSM on the Residential Rate Class

Incremental DSM Savings

Cumulative DSM Savings

DSM Costs for the Rate Class

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Residential Bills as a Result of DSM

Participants Non-Participants Total Customers

Participant Average (2019-2032) Non-Participant Average (2019-2032) Total Customers Average (2019-2032)

-$10

-$8

-$6

-$4

-$2

$0

$2

$4

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)

Average Change in Residential Bills in Comparison to a No-DSM Scenario

Non-Participants Total Customers Participants

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32C

ha

ng

e i

n R

ate

s o

ve

r p

rev

iou

s y

ea

r (%

)

Year-over-year change in Residential Rates with and without DSM

No-DSM year-over-year rate impact DSM year-over-year rate impact

This graph shows monthly bill impacts relative to the no-DSM scenario in absolute terms, for the same groups of customers as the graph shown above it.This graph shows the annual percentage change in rates over the previous year, for both the DSM and no-DSM scenarios.

This graph shows estimated bill impacts of DSM as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and average DSM savings . 'Non-Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and no DSM savings. 'Total Customers' is a hypothetical scenario where DSM savings are allocated equally to all customers in the class.

This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recovery. Red bars show the impact of lost revenues due to reduced sales. Purple bars show the impact of avoided utility costs. The blue line is the net rate effect (sum of positive and negative rate pressures), which

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Residential Rates as a Result of DSM

Lost Revenue Program Costs Avoided Costs Net Rate Impact Average Net Rate Impact (2019-2032)

Attachment 1 to Appendix C, Page 1 of 16


Date Filed: April 6, 2018


Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 17,060,557 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712 448,712

6470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

7114,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 31.749 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Residential Class

Impacts of DSM on the Residential Rate Class




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019P

art

icip

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Residential Customers

Percentage of Rate Class

Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Residential Customers


Participating

This graph shows annual program participation for the class, as a percentage of total customers in the class. Each customer is counted once for each year that they participate in any program.

This graph shows annual program participation for the class, as a percentage of eligible participants for each program. Each participant is counted once in each year that they participate. Darker bars show "tracked" participants; lighter bars show "estimated" participants for programs where individual customer information is not obtained. All 2017-2019 participation is shown as "estimated".

This graph shows cumulative program participation for the class, as a percentage of total customers in the class. Each participant is counted once, in the first that year they participate.

This graph shows cumulative program participation for the class, as a percentage of eligible participants for each program. Each participant is counted once for each program, in the first year that they participate in the program. Darker bars show "tracked" participants; lighter bars show" estimated" participants for programs where individual customer information is not obtained. All 2017-2019 participation is shown as "estimated".

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Residential Participation Rates by Program

Efficient Products (Residential)

Existing Residential

New Residential

Energy Savings Actions

Efficient Products (BNI)

Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Residential Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,130,277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539

6363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

78,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Small General Class

Impacts of DSM on the Small General Rate Class







-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Small General Bills as a Result of DSM



-$8

-$6

-$4

-$2

$0

$2

$4

$6

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)

Average Change in Small General Bills in Comparison to a No-DSM Scenario


-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in Small General Rates with and without DSM




This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recovery. Red bars show the impact of lost revenues due to reduced sales. Purple bars show the impact of avoided utility costs. The blue line is the net rate effect (sum of positive and negative rate pressures), which accounts for recovery of fixed costs that are not avoided due to DSM. The dotted red line shows the average net rate impact of DSM over the study period.

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Small General Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,130,277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539 24,539

6363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

78,080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 38.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Small General Class

Impacts of DSM on the Small General Rate Class





This graph shows annual program participation for the class, as a percentage of eligible participants for each program. Each participant is counted once in each year that they participate. Darker bars show tracked participants; lighter bars show estimated participants for programs where individual customer information is not obtained. All 2017-2019 participation is shown as "estimated".


This graph shows cumulative program participation for the class, as a percentage of eligible participants for each program. Each participant is counted once for each program, in the first year that they participate in the program. Darker bars show tracked participants; lighter bars show estimated participants for programs where individual customer information is not obtained. All 2017-2019 participation is shown as "estimated".

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Small General Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019P

art

icip

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Small General Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Small General Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Small General Customers


Participating





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 9,435,317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844

65,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

76,971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85,544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the General Class

Impacts of DSM on the General Rate Class







-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in General Bills as a Result of DSM



-$80

-$60

-$40

-$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)


Average Change in General Bills in Comparison to a No-DSM Scenario

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in General Rates with and without DSM



This graph shows estimated bill impacts of DSM as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and average DSM savings . 'Non-Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and no DSM savings. 'Total Customers' is a hypothetical scenario where DSM savings are allocated equally to all customers in the class. In this class, after 2011, all customers are assumed to have participated, so the Participants line matches the Total Customers line.


-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in General Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 9,435,317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844 14,844

65,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 5,544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

76,971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85,544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 24.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the General Class

Impacts of DSM on the General Rate Class








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative General Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Small General Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual General Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019P

art

icip

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Small General Customers


Participating





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,291,491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

6435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

759 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8132,398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Large General Class

Impacts of DSM on the Large General Rate Class







-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Large General Bills as a Result of DSM



-$8,000

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)


Average Change in Large General Bills in Comparison

to a No-DSM Scenario

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in Large General Rates with and without DSM


This graph shows estimated bill impacts of DSM as percentage differences relative to the no-DSM scenario. 'Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and average DSM savings . 'Non-Participants' represents a customer with average energy use and no DSM savings. 'Total Customers' is a hypothetical scenario where DSM savings are allocated equally to all customers in the class. In this class, all customers are assumed to have participated, so the Participants line matches the Total Customers line.


This graph shows the annual percentage change in rates over the previous year, for both the DSM and no-DSM scenarios.This graph shows monthly bill impacts relative to the no-DSM scenario in absolute terms, for the same groups of customers as the graph shown above it.

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Large General Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,291,491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

6435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 435,854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

759 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8132,398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 16.462 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Large General Class

Impacts of DSM on the Large General Rate Class








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Large General Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019P

art

icip

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Large General Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Large General Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Large General Customers


Participating





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,347,916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926

65,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

71,106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Small Industrial Class

Impacts of DSM on the Small Industrial Rate Class







-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Small Industrial Bills as a Result of DSM



-$80

-$60

-$40

-$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)


Average Change in Small Industrial Bills in Comparison


-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in Small Industrial Rates with and without DSM




This graph shows the annual percentage change in rates over the previous year, for both the DSM and no-DSM scenarios. This graph shows monthly bill impacts relative to the no-DSM scenario in absolute terms, for the same groups of customers as the graph shown above it.

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Small Industrial Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,347,916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926 1,926

65,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 5,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

71,106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 21.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Small Industrial Class

Impacts of DSM on the Small Industrial Rate Class








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Small Industrial Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Small Industrial Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Small Industrial Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Small Industrial Customers


Participating





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,587,288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337

650,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

7329 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

822,777 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Medium Industrial Class

Impacts of DSM on the Medium Industrial Rate Class







-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Medium Industrial Bills as a Result of DSM



-$600

-$400

-$200

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)Non-Participants Total Customers Participants

Average Change in Medium Industrial Bills in Comparison


-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in Medium Industrial Rates with and without DSM





-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Medium Industrial Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,587,288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 337

650,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 50,225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

7329 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

822,777 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 21.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Medium Industrial Class

Impacts of DSM on the Medium Industrial Rate Class








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Medium Industrial Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Medium Industrial Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Medium Industrial Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Medium Industrial Customers


Participating





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,587,226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

6205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8179,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Large Industrial Class

Impacts of DSM on the Large Industrial Rate Class







-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Large Industrial Bills as a Result of DSM



-$2,000

-$1,000

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)


Average Change in Large Industrial Bills in Comparison


-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in Large Industrial Rates with and without DSM


This graph shows estimated rate impacts of DSM, relative to the no-DSM scenario. Blue bars show the impact of program cost recovery. Red bars show the impact of lost revenues due to reduced sales. Purple bars show the impact of avoided utility costs. The blue line is the net rate effect (sum of positive and negative rate pressures), which



-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Large Industrial Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 1,587,226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

6205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 205,062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8179,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 23.829 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Large Industrial Class

Impacts of DSM on the Large Industrial Rate Class








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Large Industrial Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Large Industrial Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Large Industrial Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Large Industrial Customers


Participating





Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 603,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

6586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

712 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8293,444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44



Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Municipal Utility Class

Impacts of DSM on the Municipal Utility Rate Class







-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

s (%

)

Average Change in Municipal Utility Bills as a Result of DSM



-$8,000

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Mo

nth

ly B

ill I

mp

act

($

)


Average Change in Municipal Utility Bills in Comparison


-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

ov

er

pre

vio

us

ye

ar

(%)

Year-over-year change in Municipal Utility Rates with and without DSM





-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

Ch

an

ge

in

Ra

tes

(¢/k

Wh

)

Change in Municipal Utility Rates as a Result of DSM






Line#

1 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Units

2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GWh

4 603,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dollars

5 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

6586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 586,888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

712 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8293,444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kWh

9 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 17.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cents

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44






Rate and Bill Impacts of DSM on the Municipal Utility Class

Impacts of DSM on the Municipal Utility Rate Class








0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Annual Municipal Utility Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019P

art

icip

ati

on

Ra

te (

%)

Annual Participation as a Percentage of Total Municipal Utility Customers


Participating

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

of

Eli

gib

le C

ust

om

ers

)

Cumulative Municipal Utility Participation Rates by Program



New Residential



Custom

Small Business

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Cumulative Participation as a Percentage of Total Municipal Utility Customers


Participating




Appendix C - Attachment 2:

2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Assumptions

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix C - Attachment 2: Assumptions


2019 DSM Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Assumptions 1

This document is intended to provide an overview of the assumptions used in ENS’s rate and bill impact analysis. 2

These assumptions are for rate and bill impact analysis purposes only and do not impact ENS’s calculation of energy savings. 3

Item Description

General approach ENS has used the “snapshot” approach recommended by Synapse, in which the impacts of specific program years are

analyzed rather than incorporating an assessment of DSM over the long term.

Scenarios The model compares two scenarios: a DSM scenario and a no-new-DSM scenario. Both scenarios include the load and

residual rate impacts of DSM programs operated in 2011-2018 programs. The DSM scenario includes the costs and

benefits of DSM programs that are proposed to run in 2019, and the no-new-DSM scenario does not include any DSM

costs or benefits from 2019 programs. Neither scenario includes any DSM after 2019. The results of the analysis

(comparison of the two scenarios) thereby isolate the impacts of DSM costs and benefits resulting from proposed 2019

programs.

Rate classes included Synapse has indicated that providing results for a few representative rate classes is sufficient to meet the intent of the

rate and bill impact analysis. ENS has gone beyond this minimum to provide impacts for the following classes:

• Residential (rate codes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

• Small General (rate code 10)

• General (rate code 11)

• Large General (rate code 12)

• Small Industrial (rate code 21)

• Medium Industrial (rate code 22)

• Large Industrial (rate codes 23 and 25, and customers under the ‘One part high voltage real time pricing’ tariff)

• Municipal (rate code 24)

The Unmetered, Generation Replacement and Load Following (GRLF) and Shore Power rate classes are not included

in the analysis. ENS does not offer programs for the GRLF and Shore Power classes, and ENS does not have participant-

specific data on unmetered accounts in order to calculate impacts. Because not all rate classes are analyzed, the sum

total of all represented classes may not equal ENS’s total filed expenditures or verified energy and demand savings in

any given year.



Energy and demand

savings; participation

counts

First-year energy, lifetime energy, and demand savings for the 2019 Plan have been calculated at the program component

level. These savings, within each program component, were apportioned to rate classes based on the 2016 distribution

of savings between rate classes (as used in the 2017 RBIA).

Participation rates for each program, within each rate class, were estimated by multiplying the 2016 participation rates

(by program within rate class) by the ratio of expected 2019 program savings to actual 2016 program savings (as used

in the 2017 RBIA).

Weighted-average measure lives for each rate class were developed based on the ratio of expected lifetime energy

savings to expected first-year energy saving for each class.

Point-of-sale program

component

participation counts

All forecasted 2019 participation, including point-of-sale program participation, was estimated based on 2016 results,

using the methodology described above. The 2011-2016 results for point-of-sale program participation were estimated

using the methods described in this section.

In estimating participation rates for point-of-sale discount program components, ENS assumes a value for re-

participation rates (customers who participate in a point-of-sale program in more than one year) and for cross-

participation rates (customers who participate in both a point-of-sale program and another program in the same year)

for each of two point-of-sale programs, in each year. In the calculation of cumulative participation rates, ENS has

applied both the re-participation rate and cross-participation rate for rate class totals, but only the re-participation rate

for point-of-sale program totals. In the calculation of annual participation rates, ENS has applied only the cross-

participation rate for rate class totals, and neither the re-participation rate or cross-participation rate for point-of-sale

program totals.

Residential Instant Savings:

• Assume that all customers are purchasing items for Residential use (i.e., that all customers are in the Residential

and Municipal rate classes).

• To determine the number of participants in Instant Savings each year, ENS has used information from studies

commissioned by ENS. In 2011 and 2012 the study indicated participation levels were 6% of the general

population, in 2013 it indicated 7%, and in 2014 it indicated 13%. The study was not conducted in 2015, so

participation was assumed to remain at 13%. In 2016 the study indicated a participation level of 25%.

• Assume that historical re-participation of customers each year is 10%. This assumption is based on an initial

proposal from Rhode Island’s 2013 rate and bill assumptions, which is, to ENS’s knowledge, the only other

jurisdiction making these estimations. Note: Rhode Island ended up using program-specific data for which ENS



does not have comparable research. ENS reduced the number of unique participants by 10% in the first year of

duplication (2012) in 2013 accounted for 10% duplication in the remaining population. In 2014, ENSC engaged

Corporate Research Associates to determine the number of re-participants in their quarterly omnibus survey. Of

those who purchased products in 2014, 71% also purchased products in 2013. The study was not conducted in

2015 or 2016, so re-participation was assumed to remain at 71%.

• Assume that participation in Instant Savings does not affect the probability that a customer will participate in

another ENS program (i.e. estimate the cross-participation rate by dividing the number of tracked Residential

rate class program participants by the total number of customers in the class)

• For the Municipal Utility class, assume that each municipal utility participates in every year.

Business, Non-Profit and Institutional Upstream Business Energy Rebates (UBER):

• For large rate classes (Large General, Medium Industrial, Large Industrial, and Municipal), assume that each

account participates in every year.

• For small rate classes (Small General, General, Small Industrial), research was conducted in 2016 to determine

current and historical participation. To assist with recall over such a long time period, respondents were asked

to group their memory of participation within the 2011-2014 period instead of providing answers for each

individual year.

o For Small General, participation was 46% over 2011-2014, and 29% in 2015 and 2016. For General, it

was 73% over 2011-2014, 62% in 2015 and 68% in 2016. For Small Industrial, it was 55% over 2011-

2014, 50% in 2015 and 52% in 2016.

o For Small General, re-participation was 75% in 2015 and 79% in 2016. For General, it was 92% in

2015 and 96% in 2016. For Small Industrial, it was 88% in 2015 and 92% in 2016.

o For Small General, cross-participation was 13% in 2016. For General and Small Industrial it was 15%

in 2016. Cross-participation was not research for previous years, so these rates were applied to each

year in the 2011-2015 period.

• As research indicated the total number of unique participants over the 2011-2014 period, but not the distribution

of participants in each year therein, these figures were estimated using shape factor based on total program

activity in each year (i.e. within 2011-2014, more participants were allocated to years with high savings than

years with low savings, with the sum total over 2011-2014 held constant to the values obtained from research).

• A small number of BER-IR participants are assumed to come from the Residential class. Their rates of re-

participation and cross-participation are assumed to match those determined for the Small General class.

Participation rates were determined by assuming each BER-IR transaction was for a single participant, and that

the rate class allocation of participants matched that which is used to allocate savings.



Energy Savings

Actions (Home Energy

Report) participation

Customers receiving the Home Energy Report were modeled as new participants in 2013. The same cross-participation

rates used for Residential Instant Savings are used for the Home Energy Report, based on the assumption that

participation in this program does not affect the probability that a customer will participate in another ENS program (i.e.

estimate the cross-participation rate by dividing the number of tracked annual Residential rate class program participants

by the total number of customers in the class). The Home Energy Report program formally ended in 2015, however

some participants continued to access the web portal until it was shut down in 2016.

Energy and demand

rates NS Power has provided historical rates for 2019 by class, including block 1, block 2, FAM, and demand charges where

applicable. Transformer credits are not included in rates. Customer base charges are assumed to remain flat after 2019.

Beyond 2019, energy and demand rates are assumed to grow at 2.7% per year, as per NS Power’s 2014 IRP DSM

assumptions.

Energy and demand

sales Sales forecasts for 2019-2040 were taken from relevant 2014 IRP assumptions. The ratio of block 1 to total energy sales

is assumed to remain constant after 2019, within each class, where applicable.

Avoided costs Avoided costs are calculated at the system level using evaluated DSM savings and levelized avoided cost rates in four

categories: generation, transmission, distribution, and fuel. Avoided cost estimates for capacity and energy were

provided by NS Power for the 2014 IRP. In 2016, NS Power provided levelized estimates of avoided Transmission and

Distribution costs on a $/kW basis. These estimates have been used for all years of the analysis.

Avoided Cost Category Unit Value Source

Capacity (2019-2031) $/MW 195,355 2014 IRP, Base DSM scenario (levelized over 2015-2039)

Transmission (2019-2031) $/MW 8,365 Provided by NS Power in 2016 (based on load-related

transmission upgrades between 2008-2015)

Distribution (2019-2031) $/MW 3,524 Provided by NS Power in 2016 (based on load-related

distribution upgrades between 2008-2015)

Energy (2019-2031) $/MWh 107 2014 IRP, Base DSM scenario (levelized over 2015-2039)



‘Lost’ fixed cost

adjustments ‘Lost’ fixed cost adjustments assume that NS Power must recover through rates all lost revenues, including energy

revenues, but also that NS Power need not recover any of the avoided costs, including avoided energy costs. Using both

of these assumptions together, the net rate effects are adjusted for the reallocation of ‘lost’ fixed costs, and may be

positive or negative depending on the relative magnitudes of lost revenues (which are based on rates) and avoided costs

(which are based on costs avoided relative to a theoretical no-new-DSM scenario).

Eligible participants As part of the rate and bill impact analysis, overall participation and participation rates for each rate class are presented.

In order to calculate this result, ENS has used the number of NS Power customer accounts in each rate class as the

overall potential market. Because some customers have multiple account numbers, the total number of available

accounts may be greater than that the actual number of customers in a rate class. To determine the number of eligible

participants for each DSM program, ENS determined the percentage of customers in the rate class who the program was

being marketed to. This assumption was made based on feedback from the DSM Advisory Group on February 4, 2015.

The only exception to using the number of accounts per rate class is for the Municipal Utility rate class. NS Power

currently has six utility customers but eight accounts, because the Antigonish Electric Utility has three accounts. ENS

does not track which Antigonish account is being served through particular programs or participants, so the rate and bill

impacts include the number of customers rather than the number of accounts for the Municipal Utility rate class only.

Calculation of rate

impacts Rates for the DSM scenario are calculated by taking the no-new-DSM rates, adding a program cost recovery component,

a lost revenue recovery component, and an avoided cost component.

The program cost recovery is determined through ENS tracking of expenditures within each rate class, and converted to

a $/kWh rate by dividing by class energy sales.

Lost revenues are calculated by class, by multiplying energy and demand savings by no-DSM rates. Lost revenues are

then summed to the portfolio level.

Avoided costs are calculated at the system level by multiplying energy and demand savings by the four categories of

avoided costs.

Avoided costs and lost revenues are then each allocated back to rate classes based on each rate class’ share of the total

revenue requirement.

For rate classes without demand charges, the balance is divided by kWh sales within the class to form a $/kWh

component of energy rates. For rate classes with demand rates, it is assumed that energy and demand rates in the DSM

scenario change by the same percentage, and so the balance is allocated to both a $/kWh energy component and a $/kW

demand component for the DSM scenario.



Lost revenue from

peak demand

reductions

For each rate class, it is assumed that the ratio between annual system coincident peak demand contribution and total

billed demand is the same as the ratio between annual system coincident peak demand savings and total billed demand

savings.

Calculation of bill

impacts Bill impacts are calculated in three categories: participants, non-participants, and total customers.

Non-participants are assumed to use the same amount of energy and demand in the DSM scenario as they do in the no-

DSM scenario.

In each year, total cumulative savings are divided by total cumulative participants and subtracted from the average

customers’ no-DSM energy and demand consumption to determine savings for participants.

In the total customers case, total cumulative savings are divided by all customers in the class to produce the ideal

allocation of savings from an intra-class customer equity perspective and a clear view of overall rate class effects.

Appendix C - Attachment 3

2019 Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Equations

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix C - Attachment 3: Equations


2019 DSM Plan Rate and Bill Impact Analysis Equations 1

2

The following set of equations describes the modeling approach to calculating lost revenues and 3

avoided costs, and their allocation to rate classes. Lost fixed revenues are not calculated directly; 4

instead it is assumed that NS Power must ‘recover’ the difference between revenues that were lost 5

and costs that were avoided (which can be positive or negative). 6

𝐿𝑅𝑗 =∑(𝐸𝑖𝑗𝑥𝑖𝑗 + 𝑃𝐵𝑖𝑗𝑦𝑖𝑗)

8

𝑖=1

7

𝐿𝑅𝑗 System total Lost Revenue in year 𝑗 8

𝐸𝑖𝑗 DSM total annual energy savings for class 𝑖 in year 𝑗 9

𝑥𝑖𝑗 Average energy rate for class 𝑖 in year 𝑗 10

𝑃𝐵𝑖𝑗 DSM total annual billed demand savings for class 𝑖 in year 𝑗 11

𝑦𝑖𝑗 Average billed demand rate for class 𝑖 in year 𝑗 12

13

𝐴𝐶𝑗 = ⌈𝐸𝑗𝑎𝑗 + 𝑃𝑃𝑗(𝑏𝑗 + 𝑐𝑗 + 𝑑𝑗)⌉ 14

𝐴𝐶𝑗 System total Avoided Costs in year 𝑗 15

𝐸𝑗 System total DSM total annual energy savings for year 𝑗 16

𝑎𝑗 Avoided fuel cost rate in year 𝑗 17

𝑃𝑃𝑗 System total DSM total annual system-coincident peak demand savings for year 𝑗 18

𝑏𝑗 Avoided generation capacity cost rate in year 𝑗 19

𝑐𝑗 Avoided transmission capacity cost rate in year 𝑗 20

𝑑𝑗 Avoided distribution capacity cost rate in year 𝑗 21

22

𝐿𝑅𝑖𝑗 = 𝐿𝑅𝑗𝛼𝑖 23

𝐿𝑅𝑖𝑗 Lost Revenues for class 𝑖 in year 𝑗 24

𝛼𝑖 Attribution factor for class 𝑖 25

26

𝐴𝐶𝑖𝑗 = 𝐴𝐶𝑗𝛼𝑖 27

𝐴𝐶𝑖𝑗 Avoided Costs for class 𝑖 in year 𝑗 28

29

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING Appendix C - Attachment 3: Equations


Description of the indices: 1

Parameter (Index) Index Value Description

Rate class 1 Residential

(i) 2 Small General

3 General

4 Large General

5 Small Industrial

6 Medium Industrial

7 Large Industrial

8 Municipal

9 Unmetered/Other

Year 1 to 30 Years 2011 (j=1) to 2040

(j=30)

(j)

2

Attribution factors by class: 3

Source: Class proportion of rate revenue as per 2013 GRA SR-01 Attachment 1 page 51 of 130 4

(Exhibit 7) 5

Index (i=) Rate Class Value

1 Residential 53%

2 Small General 3%

3 General 25%

4 Large General 3%

5 Small Industrial 3%

6 Medium Industrial 4%

7 Large Industrial 7%

8 Municipal 2%

Appendix D

2019 Planned Expenditures by Rate Class

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING - Appendix D

Line #

1

2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H I J3 ∑ col A to I4

5 Program

Efficient Products

(Residential)

Existing Houses New HousesEfficient

Products (BNI)Custom

IncentivesDirect

Installation (BNI)Education &

OutreachDevelopment &

ResearchOther Enabling

StrategiesAll Programs

Combined

67 Rate Class8 Residential $3,428,014 $8,405,666 $2,028,954 $354,858 $32,871 $526,482 $812,902 $1,104,488 $332,619 $17,026,8539 Small General $5,825 $8,313 $0 $357,080 $0 $496,883 $47,756 $64,886 $19,540 $1,000,283

10 General Demand $7,703 $11,926 $0 $2,978,774 $2,132,668 $2,863,979 $439,823 $597,586 $179,964 $9,212,42411 Large General $310 $0 $0 $369,290 $855,129 $0 $67,375 $91,542 $27,568 $1,411,21312 Small Industrial $621 $0 $0 $417,532 $613,242 $128,463 $63,806 $86,693 $26,108 $1,336,46513 Medium Industrial $502 $0 $0 $231,994 $1,139,302 $0 $75,465 $102,534 $30,878 $1,580,67614 Large Industrial $311 $0 $0 $304,609 $1,098,690 $0 $77,215 $104,912 $31,595 $1,617,33315 Municipal $57,214 $124,096 $121,046 $185,862 $172,562 $84,193 $40,982 $55,683 $16,769 $858,40816 Unmetered $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,535 $0 $305 $414 $125 $6,37820 Planned Expenditures Total $3,500,500 $8,550,000 $2,150,000 $5,200,000 $6,050,000 $4,100,000 $1,625,629 $2,208,737 $665,166 $34,050,0322126 Planned Expenditures Total $3,500,500 $8,550,000 $2,150,000 $5,200,000 $6,050,000 $4,100,000 $1,625,629 $2,208,737 $665,166 $34,050,03227 Numbers may not sum due to rounding

28 Table 1 - Preliminary 2019 Expenditures29 EfficiencyOne 2019 DSM Plan Filing - Appendix D30 Page 1 of 231 DATE FILED: April 6, 2018

Table 1: Preliminary 2019 DSM Expenditures by Program by Rate Class

Preliminary Program Expenditures by Participating Rate Classes

EFFICIENCYONE 2019 DSM PLAN FILING - Appendix D

LINE #

1

2 COLUMN A B C D E F G H I34

5 Program

Efficient Products (RES)

Existing Houses

New HousesEfficient

Products (BNI)Custom

Incentives

Direct Installation

(BNI)

Education & Outreach

Development & Research

Other Enabling

Strategies

6 Rate Class7 Residential 97.9% 98.3% 94.4% 6.8% 0.5% 12.8% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%8 Small General 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 12.1% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%9 General Demand 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 57.3% 35.3% 69.9% 27.1% 27.1% 27.1%

10 Large General 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 14.1% 0.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%11 Small Industrial 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 10.1% 3.1% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%12 Medium Industrial 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 18.8% 0.0% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6%13 Large Industrial 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 18.2% 0.0% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7%14 Municipal 1.6% 1.5% 5.6% 3.6% 2.9% 2.1% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%15 Unmetered 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%19 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%20 Numbers may not sum due to rounding

21 Table 2 - Preliminary 2019 Program Participation22 EfficiencyOne 2019 DSM Plan Filing - Appendix D23 Page 2 of 224 DATE FILED: April 6, 2018

Table 2: Preliminary 2019 DSM Program Participation by Rate Class (Relative Shares)

Program costs incurred by participating rate classes

evidence of efficiencyone as holder of the efficiency nova ... · 20 ensc ceased to exist as nova...

Documents